On a basic level, educational institutions have not fundamentally changed since their inception. Students continue to be taught by instructors and predominantly evaluated through tests and exams. In contrast to traditional schooling, engineering courses largely aim to be hands-on and design-oriented, with in-person instruction, group projects and laboratories as core components of most programs.
When the COVID-19 pandemic forced a rapid transition to emergency remote teaching, students and faculty alike were left with coursework unrecognizable to a pre-pandemic era. Although this caused considerable problems when it came to delivering content and conducting exams, for many instructors the pandemic created a unique opportunity to revisit what they were teaching and why.
For some, virtual instruction proved nearly impossible for critical in-person experiences such as work in laboratories. For others, aspects of virtual teaching proved useful and will remain as hybrid models of course delivery and evaluation. In discussion with faculty members across post-secondary institutions in the U.S. and Canada, lessons from the pandemic are beginning to emerge, and we are getting a better sense of where we may be headed in the future of engineering course design and delivery.
“March 13, 2020, Was A Panic.”
Sasha Gollish, Ph.D., P.Eng, is an Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream, in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Toronto. She currently co-instructs and co-designs a second-year engineering design course aimed at furthering the foundational skills of students in the Engineering Science program. “March 13, 2020, was a panic,” said Dr. Gollish, adding, “We’ve learned a lot in the last year.”
At the beginning of the pandemic, Dr. Gollish and her co-instructor Philip Asare had to rapidly adapt to the virtual delivery of the remaining few weeks of coursework. Since then, they now deliver the course in a hybrid model, with online lectures provided via Zoom and in-person, small-group studio time for students to work on their design projects. With public health measures in place, students can safely gather in small groups while virtualizing the larger lectures.
A significant challenge for post-secondary engineering programs was transitioning to hybrid or even fully remote labs and practical courses. Huntley Chang, a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Toronto was a teaching assistant for two different undergraduate engineering lab courses throughout the pandemic.
In 2021, the classes were remote, and Chang and the other teaching assistants walked students through experiments live over Zoom. For example, in a 4th year bioengineering course, Chang helped students through live demonstrations of laboratory materials, and the students themselves completed virtual lab simulations offered by Labster.
At MIT, Distinguished Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Roger Mark, M.D., Ph.D., taught an upper-year course for engineers in quantitative physiology when the pandemic hit. The course relies heavily on in-person laboratory instruction to give students hands-on experience with organ systems and electrophysiology. In 2020, Dr. Mark had to rapidly adapt to emergency remote teaching for students. In the spring of 2021, the course was delivered remotely without any in-person instruction.
“There’s a big difference between a rabbit and a simulator,” said Dr. Mark in explaining the devastating hit the course took due to virtual instruction. Although he could deliver the content over Zoom, most students took the class due to the popular day-long laboratories investigating different organ systems—a rare opportunity for engineers looking to gain experience with complex biological systems.
The course will be offered in the upcoming spring semester, and Dr. Mark will return to in-person instruction and the pre-pandemic syllabus to allow students to participate in the unique laboratories offered in the class. Focusing on organ systems and electrophysiology, students complete dissections of the lung and hearts and explore the mammalian circulatory system using an anesthetized living rabbit.
Unexpected Challenges Emerged with Remote Learning
On a practical level, Dr. Gollish highlighted a core obstacle faced by many faculty members tasked with an unexpected shift to remote learning. “The biggest challenge was actually creating slides,” said Dr. Gollish. Developing engaging slideshow presentations for virtual content delivery usually presented in person was a surprising challenge for the co-instructors.
In describing their challenge, Dr. Gollish highlighted an interesting decision made by the University of Toronto Faculty of Kinesiology. Early in the pandemic, they hired two full-time creatives to support faculty with visuals and graphics for presentations. The move was well-received by students, as the emphasis on effective visual communication helped fill the void between in-person and virtual lectures.
Dr. Mark also touched on how a lack of access to research laboratories reduced the quality of education for undergraduate engineers throughout the pandemic.
“Engineering undergraduate education is heavily experience-based and relies on students participating in academic research labs,” explained Dr. Mark. Unfortunately, for many academic labs, capacity limits and uncertainty with in-person operations made it difficult for engineering students to access the type of research experience that is usually a staple of undergraduate education.
Beyond the more direct consequences of the pandemic, Dr. Gollish and others described a feeling of loss amongst the engineering students. “Some of the best ideas come from water cooler chats,” said Dr. Gollish, explaining the lack of the informal community students usually get from in-person instruction, study groups and social events. Dr. Gollish fears a generation of students will be trained to incorrectly assume engineers operate in isolation. A return to collaborative, small group work environments is something she hopes will be prioritized in undergraduate engineering programs as we transition to a new normal. It’s one of the reasons she prioritized studio time for small groups of students in her engineering design course.
In describing the significant challenges of the pandemic, Eric Tremblay, M.Sc., M.Ed., Director of Engineering Teaching and Learning Team (ETLT) in the Faculty of Engineering at Queen’s University in Canada, echoed Dr. Gollish. “The act of learning isn’t solitary,” said Tremblay. A major goal of Queen’s University is to deliver active learning in small group environments, focusing on students working and learning together as a team. He believes this will more closely simulate the workplace, where engineers work in constant collaboration to solve complex problems. Unfortunately, throughout the pandemic, students have been largely separated from this sense of community within engineering.
An Easier Transition to Virtual Learning with One-On-One Support for Faculty
With 18 years of experience designing and developing courses and programs in higher education, Tremblay and his team at Queen’s were as ready as anyone could be for a global pandemic. “I remember saying, ‘Don’t worry, I’ve been preparing for this my entire life,’” recalls Tremblay, referring to a meeting at the beginning of the pandemic. Tremblay and his team were already prepared with instructor supports and technology services to help faculty at the university make the swift transition to online learning.
Most universities have one central Centre for Teaching Excellence (CTE) with maybe one employee focused on engineering programs. However, Queen’s University was unique, with a CTE embedded in the Faculty of Engineering.
Despite the team’s ample preparedness, Tremblay still describes the early days of the pandemic as a “controlled train wreck.” Although their team didn’t need to change much in terms of strategy, they needed to rapidly ramp up services to support all faculty members with the transition. In the beginning, the team offered support and resources for the shift to emergency online teaching. In addition, the ETLT was large enough to organize one-on-one meetings with every faculty member to discuss their courses and the required changes in instruction and evaluation.
One of the biggest challenges for Tremblay’s team was helping instructors adapt laboratory and practical courses. “We tried to be creative in re-thinking labs,” explained Tremblay.
Tremblay’s team helped faculty pivot to simulations for labs where physical work was unnecessary. For example, many engineering labs switched their focus to software design instead of mechanical equipment operations. Faculty took advantage of virtualized kits from Quanser to help students optimize software design for physical pieces of equipment. In many ways, this was more efficient than in-person labs, where students were instructed on the operation of often outdated machinery. Instructors could extend the learning outcomes with virtualized kits and cover more advanced software components for state-of-the-art simulators.
For labs that relied on physical components, TAs delivered instruction by live-streaming with two cameras. A GoPro provided a real-world view of the laboratory work, and a second camera provided a wide-angle of the set-up. The students would tell the TA what to do and watch the laboratory in real-time.
Now, classes have returned to in-person instruction at Queen’s, but many aspects of virtual learning will remain. Tremblay describes this as the “rise of blended learning,” helping faculty members utilize the best elements of both in-person and virtual instruction.
For example, before the pandemic, many computer science courses required students to complete exams on pen and paper, physically writing out code to be evaluated. During the pandemic, Tremblay’s team helped instructors transition to online exams that were well received by students as they closely resembled the actual process of coding. The online evaluations will remain even with the return to in-person instruction, to allow students to use their personal computers to complete coding-based exams.
Today, ETLT continues to act as a sounding board for instructors, helping them discuss their learning objectives and goals and letting Tremblay’s team find the best way to make them a reality. For instance, instead of simply adding a lot of extra video content to a course, ETLT helps faculty members strategically integrate technology and asynchronous instruction to extend student learning. Whether that is working on state-of-the-art software labs or reducing the inefficient use of students’ in-person time, the goal is to develop courses that truly take advantage of in-person experiences with virtualized components.
Future Students Need Focus on Problems Rooted in the Real-World
A common thread amongst engineering faculty members was a need for undergraduate engineering programs to ensure courses are rooted in concrete examples and real-world problems.
Dr. Mark emphasized that “material needs to be closely linked with the real world.” In his experience, students are highly motivated by application and solving the toughest challenges we face today. As a clinician and engineer using machine learning to better understand critical care, he witnesses his own students’ desire to see the applications of their work. Motivation is a core component of being an engineer, and competency can only get a student so far without a passion for their work.
At Queen’s University, Tremblay is helping the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science undergo a remarkable transition to help students tackle these real-world problems. Traditionally, first-year courses cover some material students have already learned in high school. However, engineering faculty members noticed that this approach was often boring for students who already covered a lot of the material in grade 12, and it reduced their overall motivation without a connection to the big picture of what they were learning. So instead, some professors are transitioning to teaching first-year students how to tackle real-world problems such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This is a radical approach to first-year teaching to help students prepare to “think like an engineer.”
When asked about the future of engineering education, the Executive Director of the New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET) program at MIT, Amitava ‘Babi’ Mitra, Ph.D., added, “I think [engineering programs] have to become more relevant. Right now, they do not address the real problems facing us as a society.”
New Program Offerings at MIT Focus on the Future of Engineering
Before NEET’s innovative course offerings, the Faculty of Engineering at MIT was largely decentralized, and most departments had rigid requirements for graduation. For example, there are currently 49 engineering minors, and some do not have a single student enrolled. NEET has been working with departments to allow students more flexibility in their degree requirements, especially in upper years. From its conception, NEET did not want to be just another engineering minor. Dr. Mitra and his co-founders Ford Professor of Engineering Edward Crawley, Ph.D., and Neil and Jane Pappalardo Professor of Mechanical Engineering Anette ‘Peko’ Hosoi, Ph.D., had a bold vision to transform engineering education.
At NEET, Dr. Mitra and his team aim to provide students with a new approach to undergraduate education. The program offers three cross-departmental threads titled Autonomous Machines, Living Machines and Climate & Sustainability Systems. Each thread is designed to tackle interdisciplinary challenges engineers face in the real world. Courses are designed to include an element of teamwork and closely resemble engineering in the workforce, focusing on collaboration and innovation. Students learn the “NEET Ways of Thinking”—a set of cognitive approaches such as critical thinking, creative thinking and ethical thinking that would help them to learn and work more effectively on their own. NEET students earn a degree in their major and a NEET Certificate in one of the three threads.
Now, there are more than 230 students from 15 different departments enrolled in NEET programs. Dr. Mitra made a point of noting the exceptional ability of NEET to attract students from underrepresented minorities in engineering, as 64 percent of the students are women, and 32 percent identify as an underrepresented group. NEET is also the 4th largest undergrad cohort within the Faculty of Engineering, and it continues to gain in popularity as students spread the word on their unique course offerings. This structure facilitates their deep dive into a student community bound by an active interest in pursuing projects that cross departmental boundaries, and in exploring and learning how to apply technology to solving societal problems such as climate change, the pandemic, humanizing drug development, sustainability and renewable energy, to name a few.
With an extensive background in engineering education and educational technology, Dr. Mitra has learned many lessons throughout his years in higher education. As the founding Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Technology at BML Munjal University, India, Dr. Mitra created a “Joy of Engineering” course for first-year students. After noticing that the best students who join engineering programs often do not have a passion for the process of engineering, he wanted to find a way to excite first-year students about engineering design and problem-solving.
“I think [the pandemic] will accelerate the use of technology in learning,” added Dr. Mitra, reflecting on where engineering programs are headed in the future. “It has already forced the advancement of new virtual tools, courses and many things we can’t even imagine yet. The difference will be that pedagogic design will drive the use of technology in learning, as opposed to technology for its own sake.”
Looking forward, Dr. Mitra echoes the sentiments of other faculty members that current engineering programs do not prepare students to adequately tackle real-world problems. At NEET, they work with faculty and industry stakeholders to develop coursework aimed at critical thinking and exploring the big challenges facing society.
Where We Go From Here
As noted by Tremblay, it will be interesting to witness “the rise in blended learning” moving forward. With an increased adoption of technology in education and a renewed investment in asynchronous instruction, students will be able to enjoy increased flexibility and more advanced learning outcomes in the future.
“The pandemic has presented us with an opportunity to improve, and it can’t be ‘business-as-usual’ anymore,” says Mitra.
The pandemic has permanently shifted almost every aspect of our everyday lives. As students return to predominantly in-person instruction, the effects of the pandemic will continue to be felt for years to come. With the pandemic as a touchstone, the hope is that the next generation of engineers will be able to re-examine what it means to do impactful work and then prepare to solve the most significant challenges facing society.