During the last 40 years, problem- and project-based learning (PBL) has been widely adopted in engineering education because of its expected effectiveness in developing students’ professional knowledge and transferable skills. With a growing number of PBL researches and practices in engineering education, systematic or meta-analysis reviews were conducted regarding the definitions, history and development of PBL, and benefits for student learning outcomes. However, challenges in PBL implementation was little addressed in the current review works, and even less attention has been paid on how these challenges in implementation are related to the diverse PBL practices. This paper reviewed 108 research articles to explore the levels at which the currently reported PBL practice is being implemented, and what challenges in PBL practices are being addressed. This research illustrates the variety of PBL implementation at the course level, cross-course level, curriculum level, and project level. Across these four levels, similar challenges are reported at the individual level for teachers and students, as well as at the institutional level and the culture level. Recommendations on future research directions for engineering educational researchers and suggestions for engineering faculty and staff are proposed to optimise PBL curriculum design and inform future PBL implementation.

Three major challenges, sustainability, the fourth industrial revolution, and employability, will require new types of engineering programs, to help students develop skills in cross-disciplinarity, complexity, and contextual understanding. Future engineering students should be able to understand the needs for technological, sustainable solutions in context. The engineering graduates should be able to act in complex and chaotic situations. The question is how engineering institutions are responding now and how they should respond in the future. This article analyses the general responses from engineering education over the last 20 years. These responses are student-centred learning, integration of theory and practice, digital and online learning, and the definition of professional competencies. Examples are given of institutions that are already applying several of these components in the curriculum. On the long-term horizon, more personalised curriculum models are emerging based on students developing and documenting their own learning and career trajectories, as part of their lifelong learning strategy.

This paper compares two models for reforming engineering education, problem/project-based learning (PBL), and conceive–design–implement–operate (CDIO), identifying and explaining similarities and differences. PBL and CDIO are defined and contrasted in terms of their history, community, definitions, curriculum design, relation to disciplines, engineering projects, and change strategy. The structured comparison is intended as an introduction for learning about any of these models. It also invites reflection to support the understanding and evolution of PBL and CDIO, and indicates specifically what the communities can learn from each other. It is noted that while the two approaches share many underlying values, they only partially overlap as strategies for educational reform. The conclusions are that practitioners have much to learn from each other's experiences through a dialogue between the communities, and that PBL and CDIO can play compatible and mutually reinforcing roles, and thus can be fruitfully combined to reform engineering education.

Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research - February 2014

During the last 25 years, there have been many calls for new engineering competencies and a corresponding gradual change in both curriculum and pedagogy in engineering education. This has been a global trend, in the US, Europe, Australia and now emerging in the rest of the world. Basically, there have been two main types of societal challenges that many engineering institutions have responded to: the employability skills of graduates and the need for a sustainability approach to engineering. These are two very different challenges and societal needs; however, the ways engineering institutions have responded form a consistent pattern across many of the content aspects. No matter the specific character of change, three very different curriculum strategies seem to have evolved: an add-on strategy, an integration strategy or a re-building strategy; the latter involves substantial curriculum re-design. The add-on strategy and integration strategy are the ones most commonly used, whereas the re-building strategy is at an emerging stage in most engineering education communities. Most engineering schools find it very challenging to re-build an entire curriculum, so smaller changes are generally preferred. The purpose of this article is to conceptualise these institutional response strategies in a wider literature and present examples of curriculum change within both employability and sustainability. We will maintain that all these strategies are based on management decisions as well as academic faculty decisions; however the implications for using the various strategies are very different in terms of system change, role of disciplines, leader interventions and faculty development strategies. Furthermore, institutions might use all types of response strategies in different programs and in different semesters. The conceptual framework presented here can provide analytical anchors, hopefully creating more awareness of the complexity of systemic change.