Curriculum renewal to enhance the acquisition of professional skills and engagement with professional practice across engineering programs

ABSTRACT

Engineering students must develop professional practice skills such as critical thinking, empathy, communication, teamwork, and lifelong learning throughout their studies. These skills prepare them for addressing complex global problems in their professional careers. It is essential to systematically develop and embed professional practice skills in engineering programs and to support students through their development. Many institutions update their programs by embedding targeted interventions at strategic learning points. However, this process can be challenging as it is often done in a context with diverse stakeholder views, limited resources, and institutional processes that may not be conducive to change. This paper presents a model for curriculum renewal, developed in partnership with academic staff, professional staff, students, and industry. A significant aspect of this renewal focused on creating flexible pathways to meet professional practice accreditation requirements. The evaluation discussed in this paper examined the effectiveness of these flexible pathways. The curriculum renewal resulted in the evolution of engineering degrees, introducing a professional practice program that met accreditation requirements. This program supported students in advancing and reflecting on their professional skills and industry engagement. The results demonstrated a positive impact on students. This model could be adopted and adapted for other related degrees.

KEYWORDS:

• Engineering education
• professional practice
• curriculum renewal

1. Introduction

Higher education is evolving rapidly due to the emergence of new fields, technological advancements, globalisation, and societal challenges like pandemics and climate change. To address these challenges, future professionals, including engineers, need 21^st century skills to effectively communicate, empathise and work collaboratively to find innovative solutions for complex global problems (Patrinos 2020; UNESCO 2017; UNICEF 2019). There is abundant literature describing the need to evolve engineering education programs to include a more effective presence of professional skills development (Burnett et al. 2019; Crawley et al. 2007; Graham 2018) and engineering programs throughout the world have been adapting to this requirement in various structural reforms (Graham 2018; Lindsay and Morgan 2016; Mitchell et al. 2019).

Professional practice skills, also referred to as employability skills, soft skills or 21st Century skills (Moore and Morton 2017), support agile adaptive learning and help navigate personal, academic, social and economic challenges (UNICEF 2019). These skills include critical and analytical thinking, conflict resolution, creativity, empathy, communication, research, entrepreneurship, problem solving, multidisciplinary and multicultural teamwork, interpersonal and lifelong learning (Beagon et al. 2022; Desjardins et al. 2013). Competence in these skills is highly regarded in the engineering profession (Male, Bush, and Chapman 2009; Trevelyan 2007, 2010) and must be explicitly included and developed within accredited engineering degree programs (ABET 2019; Engineers Australia 2019). However, many programs include a wide variety of activities that are solely related to acquiring the traditional engineering body-of-knowledge. Consequently, the introduction of pedagogical structures to develop and embed the acquisition of professional skills into existing programs can be complex.

Promoting professional skills calls for significant changes in engineering programs (by program we mean an integrated collection of courses, units or subjects that must be completed to be awarded an academic degree), requiring the involvement of industry, community, program designers, instructors, and students. To ensure graduates acquire these skills, they need to be integrated in the curriculum and progressively developed (Burnett et al. 2019). This integration ensures clear connections between courses and the Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) (Biggs 2003a; Burnett et al. 2019). Integrating professional skills in existing engineering programs can be challenging. These skills could be deployed in specific courses with associated objectives, but in professional practice, they are used in the context of real-life scenarios. It is therefore suggested that students may better develop these skills when they are contextualised within authentic professional scenarios throughout their program of study using a project-based and problem-based learning approach (J. E. Mills and Treagust 2003). These active learning methods, where students apply theoretical knowledge to solve open-ended problems, enhance understanding and competence compared to traditional teaching (Johnson and Hayes 2016; Pawson et al. 2006).

To further support the development of these skills, Sheppard et al. (2008, 9) recommend including a professional practice spine, where students engage with and reflect on professional practice each year, linking theory with practice. Implementing a professional spine requires an integrated curriculum design that contextualises and emphasises the development of professional skills (Burnett et al. 2019) and helps students connect topics across courses (Froyd and Ohland 2005). This spine embeds a consistent approach to developing engineering design and professional practice skills in targeted courses (Frank, Strong, and Sellens 2011). Adopting this approach has shown improved development of professional practice skills and better preparation for final-year capstone projects (Kamp 2013; Venters et al. 2015).

The task of creating a pedagogical structure that ensures that graduates are fluent in professional skills while maintaining the acquisition of discipline-specific skills is a delicate trade-off that may have a profound effect on the overall quality of the student experience. Some institutions have changed their entire engineering programs to meet these requirements. For example, Charles Sturt University (CSU) in Australia has introduced a civil engineering program that relies on industry placements with a strong focus on developing transferrable and entrepreneurial skills (Graham 2018; Lindsay and Morgan 2016). University College London (UCL) has introduced a multi-disciplinary cross-faculty teaching framework with intensive interdisciplinary team-based projects in each year level that focus on global, society and ethical issues (Mitchell et al. 2019). As these examples highlight, there is a need to provide students with explicit experiences to acquire their professional skills and connect them with their future professional career. Ultimately, institutions have to either re-think their existing engineering programs or introduce radical structural changes.

Comprehensive redesigns are not always possible due to budget constraints, workforce capacity, or lack of support from senior management etc. Hence, there is a need to explore redesign strategies that can be undertaken within existing engineering degree structures. These approaches must balance institutional requirements while embedding the development of professional practice skills and engagement with industry in authentic learning experiences.

There has been considerable theoretical and applied research exploring the design of engineering programs to embed professional practice skills and promote engagement with industry. Despite this, a recent report from the Australian Council of Engineering Deans (ACED) (Burnett et al. 2019) concluded that additional changes in engineering programs are required to further support graduates in gaining these essential skills.

This paper presents a model for redesigning an engineering curriculum to support students’ development of professional practice skills and engagement with professional practice. Developed through collaboration between academic staff, professional staff, student support services, students and industry, this model introduces a set of courses with an integrated development program to acquire professional skills and embed engagement with professional practice. The use of this model is showcased in the redesign and student evaluation of three traditional 4-year engineering programs at an Australian technology university.

The paper addresses the following research questions:

• RQ1 What changes can be made to an existing engineering curriculum to embed the acquisition of professional skills and provide a more flexible approach for engagement with professional practice for all students?

• RQ2 How effective is this approach in enhancing student understanding and engagement with the required professional practice in their degree program, according to student perspectives?

In this paper, Section 2 describes the development of a curriculum renewal model and its application in renewing an engineering program through a case study. Section 3 discusses the model’s evaluation and outcomes. The paper concludes with a summary of the contribution of this work to engineering education and provides recommendations for institutions interested in program renewal and promoting professional skills.

2. Curriculum renewal Model and case study

This section describes a curriculum renewal model that drew extensively on collaboration with industry and experts in professional and employability skills to embed the acquisition of professional skills and engagement with professional practice in engineering programs. It used explicitly designed course components and curated extra-curricular activities, quantified in terms of their contribution to professional practice development and engagement with professional practice. The model was used to redesign the Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) programs at the University of South Australia (UniSA).

UniSA is a member of the Australian Technology Network, a group of six Australian universities that focus on enterprise, impact and finding solutions to issues faced by our society (ATN Network 2020). The engineering programs at UniSA include the disciplines of civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering and they are all accredited by the professional body for engineers in Australia, Engineers Australia (EA). EA provides a definition of the Stage 1 competencies required for all graduating engineers (Engineers Australia 2019), aligning with the Washington Accord’s standards to ensure international recognition for Australian engineering programs. The update of UniSA’s engineering programs was initiated by several factors, including an external review, benchmarking of the programs, the move to a common first year, an increased focus on professional practice, and an impending accreditation review. Additionally, the rise in international student enrolment and the challenges many students faced in gaining industry experience before graduation necessitated a shift in the approach to student engagement in professional practice.

When considering the redesign of a program, it is essential to ensure that the PLOs remain relevant to the profession and that learning can be measured and assessed. PLOs must also be aligned with national requirements (e.g. Australian Qualification Framework 2013) professional organisations (e.g. ABET 2019; Engineers Australia 2019), and other relevant university, government, and industry standards. PLOs inform the development of course learning outcomes (or objectives) and the design of learning activities and assessment tasks across a curriculum. The alignment of these components is known as constructive alignment which is an ‘approach to curriculum design that optimises the conditions for quality learning’ (Biggs 2003b, 1). The importance of having an integrated curriculum that is constructively aligned has been reinforced in various studies (Loughlin, Lygo-Baker, and Lindberg-Sand 2020; Wang et al. 2013). Further, an integrated curriculum that contextualises and emphasises professional skills development across engineering programs has been highlighted by Burnett et al. (2019) and Crawley et al. (2007).

PLOs are typically refined to provide the scope and sequence of learning across a program. This sequence of learning is usually captured in a program level rubric with criteria defined for each attainment level. For example, Orrell (n.d.) proposed four levels identified as ‘developing, functional, proficient and advanced’. Clearly defined attainment criteria help academics to design scaffolded authentic assessment tasks in a cohesive way across a program (Lawson 2015). It is important to provide members of the program team with the appropriate support in the constructive alignment process, as highlighted by A. Mills et al. (2013) as part of an extensive curriculum review (University 2014).

The collaborative program renewal model implemented at UniSA comprised three steps:

1. Identification of PLOs to meet the various stakeholder requirements. This included updating of PLOs so they were current and aligned with professional competencies, university graduate outcomes and any other stakeholder requirements.

2. Determination of how the PLOs could be best scaffolded across the program. This included mapping of course outcomes, assessments, and levels of attainment with respect to the PLOs to ensure there was an adequate level of cohesiveness between technical and professional skills among courses.

3. Redesign of the program structure was undertaken to support student development of the PLOs and include a clear progressive development of professional practice skills and industry engagement opportunities. This included embedding scaffolded professional engineering practice opportunities and skills development across the curriculum and identifying relevant extra-curricular opportunities.

2.1. Step 1: identify program learning outcomes (PLOs)

To support a shared understanding of the collaborative program renewal model, extensive consultation with industry, university support units, students and the relevant program teams (faculty members engaged in the delivery of the courses in a program) was necessary. The development or review of PLOs through this consultation process was done with the objective of creating a set of definitions that were generic enough to capture the wide spread of competencies required for graduates but concrete enough to provide guidance when refining the course outcomes. Each PLO was then mapped to relevant stakeholder requirements, University graduate outcomes, and professional competency standards.

At UniSA nine PLOs were created using this process. For example, the PLO focused on sustainability and cultural awareness was: ‘As a global citizen, value the need for and develop sustainable and culturally appropriate engineering solutions with sensitivity to their impacts on social, economic, environmental and political contexts.’ To ensure expectations of engineering graduates were compatible and consistent with the broader expectations of graduates of the University, PLOs were mapped to the seven graduate qualities of the University (UniSA 2022). PLOs were then mapped to the professional competency standards defined by the EA Stage 1 Competencies (Engineers Australia 2019). This standard describes the required attributes of a graduate of an accredited engineering program in Australia for the role of professional engineer. The standard comprises three domains of competency: (1) Knowledge and Skill Base; (2) Engineering Application Ability; and (3) Professional and Personal Attributes, with 16 elements of competency. The domains of competency give professional and personal attributes the same level of significance as knowledge and skill base, or application ability.

The initial version of the programs contained a generic set of PLOs used across all three engineering disciplines that were designed through a process that did not engage the engineering program teams. This resulted in a lack of awareness of the need to map course objectives to PLOs, and consequently these were not referred to in the development or updating of course outcomes. Using the new model, a more comprehensive and collaborative approach was applied to develop new PLOs that were then comprehensively mapped to courses and assessments. The process to create the PLOs required the participation of a curriculum designer, a project officer and the program directors as well as the consultation noted above. Program teams were invited to subsequent workshops to discuss the initial version of the PLOs and provide their feedback. The final versions were approved by program teams.

This step also included an additional refinement of the PLOs to incorporate Discipline Learning Outcomes (DLOs). This was done by including specific words relevant to the discipline (e.g. civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering) to replace generic terms in the PLOs such as engineering specialisation. The benefit of first defining the broader engineering learning outcomes was that they provided a consistent framework across the engineering disciplines. At UniSA DLOs were developed through the same process after the initial PLOs were agreed upon.

2.2. Step 2: curriculum mapping

The second step in the model comprised the mapping of course outcomes, assessments, and level of attainment to the PLOs. This mapping was crucial to ensure the adequate presence of activities supporting professional skills, as well as the cohesiveness between courses in the program. The PLOs represented a crucial bridge between the university and industry requirements in terms of the skills, qualities, and attributes required for graduates. However, it was at the course level that students were assessed on those skills. It was therefore necessary to translate the PLOs into meaningful and contextualised course objectives that were clearly assessed (Jorre de St Jorre and Oliver 2018). After this step, each assessment task within each course had to be mapped to its corresponding PLOs with a specific level of attainment. This approach to assessment design ensured the student learning trajectory was designed from commencement to graduation to maximise the attainment of the PLOs, thereby ensuring the acquisition of the associated university requirements and industry competencies. This approach also built a shared understanding of terminology amongst program teams (Smith et al. 2017) and showcased how skills were scaffolded across the program.

At UniSA this step was conducted by the program team of each of the engineering disciplines. A Course Creation and Alignment website was created to provide program teams with access to a collection of guides, documents, resources, and forms supporting the curriculum alignment process. Teaching and learning support personnel were specifically appointed to assist with this process. They scheduled regular sessions with each program team to undertake the alignment process and determine how to map the PLOs to the elements (outcomes, assessment, etc) of each course in the program. The four levels of attainment ‘Introducing’, ‘Developing’, ‘Mastering’ and ‘Leading’ were used throughout the mapping process. There were frequent discussions about the interpretation of each of these levels, highlighting the need for clear communication and a moderation process to ensure consistency across the courses.

2.3. Step 3: redesign program structure to embed professional practice

The introduction of a professional practice spine and industry engagement opportunities may require significant structural changes to a program. Kolmos, Hadgraft, and Holgaard (2016) identified three strategies for curriculum change in engineering education: an add-on strategy, an integration strategy, and a re-building strategy (often unfeasible due to substantial redesign requirements). The add-on strategy ‘adds or modifies components without disturbing the existing structure’ (Kolmos, Hadgraft, and Holgaard 2016, 396). The integration strategy uses mapping to integrate professional practice and other skills development over the entire program. This strategy usually includes changes in several courses and limited changes to the overall program.

At UniSA an integration strategy was adopted to optimise commonality between the engineering disciplines, provide students with industry focused career support and provide a stronger focus on professional skills development through the introduction of a professional practice spine called the Professional Practice Core (PPC).

This core gradually develops necessary professional skills so they can be fully utilised when students undertake their capstone project courses, when students go on industry placement and when they begin their graduate employment. An overarching professional practice program (PPP) that incorporates learning derived from the PPC courses was also introduced to provide a structural overlay to support students’ professional development and engagement with industry. The PPP is a flexible approach that can be tailored to meet specific professional accreditation requirements. For example, all accredited Engineering programs in Australia include a requirement to complete a minimum of 450 hours (or 12 weeks) of industrial experience and engagement with professional practice (Bradley 2008).

The Professional Practice Program developed and introduced at UniSA was informed by the Professional Engagement Program at The University of Sydney (Kadi and Lowe 2018). The University of Sydney program embedded in-curricular activities in interdisciplinary project courses, but used eight zero-credit (administrative, non-fee paying) courses across the degree to monitor student progress and organise student seminars to provide essential professional development skills (Lowe et al. 2022). At UniSA professional development activities were integrated within the PPC (for credit) courses, and an extensive communication and feedback strategy was developed to support students’ progressive development over this process. The PPP provided a structure for how engagement with professional practice can be mapped and tracked across a program of study. Specifically, it brought together explicitly designed in-curricular course components that have a quantifiable contribution to the professional practice skill development that were then complemented with additional extracurricular components.

The new program structure was deployed in 2019, and the PPP started in 2020. The program now embeds professional engineering practice opportunities and skills development throughout each of its four years. Students have flexibility in their final year in how they structure their professional practice development. For example, the two-course capstone design project and two-course research project can be replaced with an approved in-industry internship (equivalent to four courses) over one or two semesters with similar learning outcomes.

The resulting program structure is shown in Figure 1 and includes 32 courses across four years organised in the following blocks:

• Introductory Engineering Studies (1^st year): Six common introductory technical courses and two common professional practice courses providing a broad introduction to civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering, mathematics, science principles, programming, CAD and professional practice.

• Intermediate and Advanced Discipline Studies: Ten courses in the core discipline area including intermediate discipline studies in second year that include additional mathematics and science topics and introduce students to their selected engineering discipline areas followed by advanced discipline studies in third year focused on developing students’ core discipline knowledge.

• Intermediate and Advanced Complementary Studies: Eight courses including options for students to study a generalist degree or to specialise in an area.

• Professional Practice Core (PPC): The professional practice core includes eight courses where students develop the professional skills and attributes of an engineer while working together on cross disciplinary projects. Two courses are included in first year, one in both second and third year and then half of final year is focused on applying professional skills in the capstone research and design courses.

Figure 1. Updated UniSA engineering program structure and professional practice program (PPP).

The adopted PPP required students to accrue at least 450 hours of industrial experience and engagement with professional practice by the end of the first semester in the final year. These hours are accrued from three bands: In-curriculum, extra-curricular, and in-industry experience (Figure 1). The description and requirements for the three PPP Bands are as follows:

• Band 1 – In-curriculum: Hours mapped to activities within five selected PPC courses. Examples of activities in this band included industry presentations, career skills development, professional competency reflections, industry case studies, teamwork development activities, design projects with industry clients, and industry site visits.

• Band 2 – Extra-curricular activities: Hours from participation in pre-determined activities to build personal and professional competencies. Examples of these activities in this band included engagement with professional bodies, hackathons, workshops, training courses, study tours, and non-engineering workplace interactions (casual work or volunteering). These activities can start in the first year and do not require engineering theory to attain competency.

• Band 3 – In-industry experience: Hours from participation in approved internships and industry placements, after completing the required pre-requisite courses. This ensures students have the necessary engineering knowledge and skills to apply in an industry setting. These activities include conventional placements, work experience, employment, internships, industry linked research projects or similar.

The activities in Band 1 were selected from those in the PPC courses, mapped to EA Stage 1 Competencies, and then translated into hours for inclusion in the PPP requirement. Figure 2 provides an example of four activities within a first year course that, after the mapping, accrued 63 hours towards Band 1. The number of Band 1 hours mapped to each PPC course varied depending on the project tasks and activities, with some courses having only 12 hours mapped, and a total of 139 hours mapped over five courses. However, these numbers could change as course activities are updated.

Figure 2. Mapping of band 1 in-curriculum hours for the first year first semester PPC course.

The percentage of activities required from students for each band could be adjusted, establishing minimum and maximum hours based on accreditation, discipline, or institutional requirements. UniSA have limited the number of hours accrued from activities in Band 1 and 2 to a maximum of 225 hours (50% of the required 450 hours) to ensure students obtain a meaningful industry experience as part of Band 3.

The PPP provided a flexible approach that accommodated the varied experiences of students, including the following example scenarios:

• Student 1: Successfully completed PPC courses and accumulated 139 hours in-curriculum, completed 86 hours of extra-curricular activities and undertook 225 hours of approved in-industry experience.

• Student 2: Completed 370 hours of approved in-industry experience and participated in 80 hours of extra-curricular activities.

• Student 3: Completed 450 hours of approved in-industry experience.

All approved professional practice activities were recorded in the University’s placement management system. Upon completion of the 450 PPP hours, students were required to enrol in a zero-credit Industrial Experience course in final year and write a reflective assessment task to demonstrate how attainment of the EA Stage 1 Competencies had been met from the Band 2 and Band 3 activities. Once the task was assessed, students received a non-graded pass for the course, indicating the completion of this program requirement.

3. Evaluation and discussion

The introduction of the PPP at UniSA supported a much earlier and more comprehensive student engagement with industry in their program. Many more students completed their in-industry experience requirement before the start of their final semester. An analysis of students’ completed PPP hours and graduation eligibility records, undertaken in mid-2022 (noting that the PPP was deployed in the first semester of 2020) showed that 80% (n = 115) of students eligible to graduate at the end of 2022 (N = 144) had completed their PPP hours before the start of their final semester and 55% (n = 63) accrued Band 2 hours from a range of pre-approved activities from 15 organisations. Out of the 20% (n = 29) who had not completed their PPP hours, n = 9 were on placement and n = 20 had yet to commence their placement or had not arranged a placement, but did complete this over their final summer prior to graduation at the start of 2023. This is a very positive result considering the PPP had been running for under 3 years.

In 2023, an evaluation was conducted to gain deeper insights into student engagement with the PPP which also responded to RQ2. The evaluation explored ways in which support for students in completing their PPP hours could be improved and how to communicate the program’s requirements and expectations most effectively. It comprised an online survey that was undertaken during the first half of semester 2 of 2023. This study received approval from the UniSA Human Research Ethics Committee, ensuring all procedures complied with the ethical standards for research involving human participants.

All engineering undergraduate students (554) were invited to participate in the survey, and n = 130 (24%) responded. Of those who responded to the survey, n = 49 were final year students. Of these final year students, 84% had completed their industry experience.

The survey collected information from a broad range of areas including students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the PPP and its processes, their experiences in sourcing information from the PPP website, the usefulness of the PPP newsletter, and the level of student engagement with extra-curricular activities. Student responses to the following questions were of relevance to this paper:

1. To what extent does the flexible approach of the PPP help you to meet the 450-hour engagement with professional practice requirement of your program? (Likert scale response: 1 ‘not helpful’ to 5 ‘extremely helpful’)

2. In what specific ways has the PPP supported you in obtaining your professional practice hours? (Open text response)

It should be noted that these survey questions are skewed to the positive as they were designed to specifically explore how the PPP has been beneficial in supporting students. Implementing a more balanced answer scale would produce more valid data. A comparative evaluation is also not possible because parallel survey data was not collected from students studying under the former program design, so an evaluation of the change in student understanding is not available. As a result, only student perspectives are presented here.

Figure 3 presents results for survey question 1 using a horizontal stacked bar chart subdivided into categories of respondents: all students, domestic students, international students, and by undergraduate year level from first to fourth year. The total number of responses for each group is indicated, along with their median and mode, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Figure 3. Perceived effectiveness of the professional practice program (PPP) in assisting undergraduate engineering students to meet the 450-hour engagement with professional practice requirement.

The survey’s findings revealed that almost 50% of all respondents rated the PPP as extremely or very helpful, with very few rating it as not helpful – this pattern was largely borne out across the various sub-sets of respondents described in Figures 3.

Domestic undergraduate students perceived the program as very helpful (median = 4 and mode = 4) compared to international undergraduates who reported the least benefit but still found it to be moderately helpful (median = 3 and mode = 3). The survey results confirm that while the PPP is seen as somewhat helpful across all student groups, there are variances that could guide program improvements such as further targeted support for international students and enhanced communication on the PPP requirements.

When asked, ‘In what specific ways has the PPP supported you in obtaining your professional practice hours?’, out of the n = 130 students who responded to the survey, n = 73 provided comments for this question. These were categorised as n = 55 positive, n = 11 neutral, and n = 7 negative comments. There were no mixed responses (a mix of positive and negative). The negative feedback mainly highlighted a lack of support in finding placements, with remarks like ‘It hasn’t really, as I have found my work experience by my own contacts’. Neutral comments often expressed uncertainty about the PPP, such as ‘I’m not particularly sure of how the PPP works’.

A qualitative thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach, was undertaken on the positive student responses to explore insights into various aspects of the PPP that students found beneficial. This approach included the following phases: 1) Familiarisation with data; 2) Identifying codes; 3) Searching for themes; 4) Reviewing themes; 5) Defining and naming themes; 6) Writing up. Comments were treated holistically as a whole unit of analysis without breaking them down into smaller parts. This qualitative method allowed identification, analysis, and reporting of patterns within the data. Initially, the first author conducted the analysis, identifying 10 codes from the comments. These were refined to five key themes after further review and discussion among co-authors, ensuring a rigorous and iterative process to enhance the analysis’s validity and reliability, even in the absence of inter-rater reliability.

Table 1 presents themes and findings from the thematic analysis of the positive comments, including the percentage of the n = 55 subset of positive comments where this theme was identified.

Table 1. Integrated themes from positive student feedback on how the PPP supported obtaining professional practice hours.

Theme	Percentage of positive comment subset, n = 55%)	Sample Quotes from Comments
Diverse Opportunities for Practical Experience: Practical experiences the PPP offers, such as internships and workshops, aiding students in exploring career options and gaining hands-on experience.	49.1	‘It provided me with opportunities and incentive to explore other avenues to search for career pathways outside of standard internships’. ‘showing me the current opportunities to undertake an internship with different companies, as well as the events and activities where I can meet and talk to different companies and industries to know more about what I want to do later on’
Enhanced Learning and preparedness for real world challenges: PPP’s role in enhancing learning beyond traditional classroom settings and preparing students for real-world challenges.	34.5	‘The workshops and seminars conducted as part of PPP have equipped me with skills that are beneficial both for obtaining and succeeding in professional practice settings’. ‘Getting ready for an actual on-field experience, how to find, how to apply, the processes’
Structured Approach and Clear Guidance: Structured nature of the PPP and the clear guidance provided to assist students in navigating their professional growth and understanding opportunities and requirements.	25.5	‘PPP made gaining professional practice hours via in-industry experience simple and easy’. ‘Allowed relevant placements to be found. Also helped in appropriately settling into a company given the stream-lined approach’.
Flexibility in Completing Hours: PPP’s ability to let students earn professional hours flexibly, helping them balance work, studies, and other commitments.	20.0	‘The extracurricular activity I participated in during the course counted towards my PPP hours. This gave me flexibility in choosing my industrial placement. Some slightly shorter but better placement opportunities can be considered’. ‘Allowed me to complete some of my hours through ways other than placement alone’
Integration with Current Employment and Studies: PPP integrates with students’ current employment and academic studies, allowing them to accumulate hours without disrupting their ongoing work or study commitments.	20.0	‘Made it accessible through the university, which is really helpful for someone with no industry connections right now’. ‘Gain hours through subject courses, white card and applying for hours through the casual job I work in’.

The survey feedback on the PPP highlighted its strengths in offering flexible, diverse, and structured professional development, along with real-world preparedness. However, it also pointed out areas for improvement, particularly in providing clearer program details and more direct help to find placements.

The introduction of the PPP and the flexible approach in the final year of the engineering programs has led to more students completing industry internships instead of traditional capstone research and design courses. In 2022, 22.3% of students completed a 2 or 4 course equivalent internship, rising to 31.5% in 2023. This marked a significant increase from only 5.7% in 2018 (Table 2). It should be noted that COVID-19 significantly reduced internship opportunities in 2020 and 2021 due to industry-wide disruptions, leading organisations to cancel or shift to virtual programs.

Table 2. Comparison of students completing capstone design and research projects vs. internships (2018-2023).

Year	Students completing capstone courses	Students completing internship	Percentage of Internships (%)
2018	100	6	5.7
2019	98	3	3.0
2020	183	3	1.6
2021	161	4	2.4
2022	108	31	22.3
2023	74	34	31.5

The redesign of the undergraduate UniSA engineering programs was overall very positive, though some issues and challenges arose. The collaborative nature of the process, while beneficial for consensus-building and comprehensive input, necessitated more time for discussions, planning, and implementation. Another challenge was obtaining a shared understanding of the engagement with professional practice accreditation requirements. The accrediting body provided guidelines that allowed some flexibility in how these requirements are defined and implemented within institutions. The redesign process required time to build a shared understanding of how this approach would be defined, supported and administered. Once these requirements were clarified with program teams and checked with the accrediting body, activities under each of the three PPP bands were decided and clearly communicated to students. An additional challenge was the workload hours and funding to adequately resource the deployment of PPP. Owing to the zero credit nature of the industrial experience course there is no direct income linked to this requirement in the program, consequently alternative sources of workload allocation and funding were required. Due to the importance of the PPP, the opportunities for efficiencies were limited but some streamlining was possible. For example, students can only undertake Band 2 activities that were already vetted and approved by the PPP team. This element of the program streamlined the time required to evaluate student sourced extra curricular activities. The available software resources to monitor students’ progress across the PPP was also limited. The University had access to the student placement software inPlace (QuantumIT 2023). This software had been used successfully in the UniSA teaching and nursing programs but required workarounds to effectively monitor student progress across the three bands of the PPP in Engineering. This required considerable time to configure but once established, it enabled the team to efficiently track completion of student PPP hours.

On the positive side, involving a diverse group of stakeholders and developing a shared understanding of the definition of engagement with professional practice resulted in greater buy-in and ownership of the changes. This inclusive approach supported increased collaboration, bringing together varied perspectives and expertise, which enriched the process and outcomes. Despite the increased time commitment required, the outcomes have shown that the time invested was worthwhile, as the changes have led to significant improvements in embedding and tracking students engagement with professional practice.

4. Conclusion

The introduction of a Professional Practice Program (PPP) in a suite of engineering programs provided structure and a systematic method for integrating professional skills and engagement with professional practice throughout a degree. This approach not only enriches the curriculum but also offers a flexible method for embedding these skills and facilitating student engagement with professional practice (RQ1). The implementation and evaluation of the PPP at UniSA provides a case study that demonstrates student perspectives of the effectiveness of this approach in enhancing student understanding and earlier professional practice engagement (RQ2). The work contributes to the curriculum development area of engineering education by providing a detailed description of how to undertake a curriculum renewal process that has been demonstrated to have a successful and flexible approach that enables students to develop professional practice skills and more easily meet professional practice accreditation requirements.

The redesign described in this paper has served to distil the following recommendations for institutions interested in program renewal and promoting professional skills:

1. From the first year, integrate professional practice into the curriculum, focusing on targeted skill development and embedding these skills across subjects for progressive enhancement. This approach promotes systematic skill growth and provides clear guidance for instructors on skill application.

2. Adopt a cohesive strategy that focuses on consistency, collaboration, and active engagement with stakeholders, ensuring program-wide consistency and better alignment with both industry expectations and academic standards. This enhances the program’s effectiveness and relevance.

3. To secure staff support, emphasise the importance of aligning engineering programs with industry demands and professional competency requirements, highlighting the need for developing professional skills, engaging with professional practice, and the risks of non-compliance.

4. To maintain effectiveness, implement a monitoring and evaluation mechanism that tracks outcomes and gathers feedback from stakeholders, including students, faculty, and industry partners, to drive continuous improvement and program relevance to evolving professional standards.

The capacity of the presented Professional Practice Program to meet engagement with professional practice requirements through flexibility on how the hours in the three bands are allocated and mapped makes it an ideal candidate to be adopted by other disciplines. At UniSA, the program has now been extended to the Master of Engineering Programs and Bachelor of Construction Management programs. This structured yet flexible approach has been successfully applied to manage industry engagement within these disciplines and has proven capable of accommodating significant student numbers, both in on-campus and online cohorts.

Acknowledgments

The Authors wish to thank the UniSA Engineering Program teams and STEM Placement Team for their collaboration in updating the engineering programs and embedding the Professional Practice Program.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elizabeth Smith

Elizabeth Smith, BEng (Mechanical, Hons) is a senior lecturer in Engineering at UniSA. Elizabeth coordinates a first-year engineering course in design and professional practice. She was a previous program director of engineering undergraduate programs and has been responsible for mapping and embedding professional skills development across the engineering programs. Her research focus is in engineering education and professional skills development.

Abelardo Pardo

Professor Abelardo Pardo is the Head of School, Computer and Mathematical Sciences at the University of Adelaide. His research interests include the design and deployment of technology to increase the understanding and improve digital learning experiences. More specifically, his work examines the areas of learning analytics, personalised active learning, and technology for student support. He is the author of over 200 research papers in scholarly journals and international conferences in the area of educational technology and engineering education.

Julie Mills

Professor Julie E. Mills is Professor of Engineering Education and previously the Executive Dean of UniSA STEM. Julie’s research interests are diverse and span the areas of Engineering Education, Women in Engineering and Structural Engineering. She has published two books, numerous journal articles, supervised PhD students and received Cat 1 grants (ARC and OLT) and industry funding across all of these areas.

David Birbeck

Dr David Birbeck is the head of curriculum development and support in the Teaching Innovation Unit at UniSA. His research interests include the affective domain of teaching and learning. Particularly, how courses and programs might be developed so they rigorously develop and assess affective learning.