Desktop version

Home arrow Engineering arrow Engineering and Technology Talent for Innovation and Knowledge-Based Economies: Competencies, Leadership, and a Roadmap for Implementation

Source

Skills Satisfaction

Industry Versus Faculty

Descriptive analysis showed that all means are around 3 “neutral” for both groups showing relatively lower satisfaction degree with these skills although of higher means of faculty members than that of the industrial sector members for both dimensions I and III and higher means for industrial sector members for dimensions II and IV showing higher satisfaction Tables 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8.

Also, hypothesis testing using Mann-Whitney U test showed no statistically significant difference between both groups.

Industry Versus Students

Descriptive analysis showed that all means are around 3 “neutral” for both groups showing relatively lower satisfaction degree with such skills. Students have had slightly higher means of satisfaction than Industry for all skills except ICT and disciplinary engineering fundamentals, such as detailed in Tables 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8.

Table 7.5 Statistics of 22 generic engineering skills satisfaction from S. Students, faculty members, and industrial sector members’ perspectives “Dimension I”

Dim I: Core knowledge and practice

Variable

Group

under

study

Sample

number

(N)/mean

Mann- Whitney (industry vs. faculty)

Mann- Whitney (industry vs. students)

Mann- Whitney (faculty vs. students)

Disciplinarily

engineering

fundamentals

(depth)

Faculty

40/3.68

0.599/-0.03

0.323/0.12

0.571/0.15

Industry

55/3.65

S. Students

287/3.53

Interdisciplinary

engineering

knowledge

(breadth)

Faculty

40/3.45

0.199/-0.23

0.118/-0.24

0.956/-0.01

Industry

54/3.22

S. Students

283/3.46

Math, physics, and

science

fundamentals

Faculty

40/3.28

0.072/0.32

0.395/-0.06

0.010/0.38

Industry

53/3.60

S. Students

288/3.66

Practical experience

Faculty

40/3.30

0.407/-0.17

0.169/-0.23

0.578/-0.06

Industry

53/3.13

S. Students

284/3.36

ICT experience

Faculty

40/3.68

0.533/0.08

0.078/0.29

0.351/0.21

Industry

54/3.76

S. Students

287/3.47

Multidisciplinary

knowledge

Faculty

40/3.33

0.525/-0.2

0.129/-0.27

0.497/-0.07

Industry

43/3.13

S. Students

286/3.40

Table 7.6 Statistics of 22 generic engineering skills satisfaction from S. Students, faculty members and industrial sector members perspectives “Dimension II”

Dim II: Cognition and thinking

Variable

Group

under

study

Sample

number

(N)/mean

Mann-Whitney (industry vs. faculty)

Mann-Whitney (industry vs. students)

Mann-Whitney (faculty vs. students)

Life long learning

Faculty

41/3.44

0.897/0

0.365/0.17

0.260/0.17

Industry

54/3.44

S. Students

287/3.61

Problem-solving

Faculty

41/3.22

0.744/0.08

0.005/-0.41

0.003/-0.49

Industry

53/3.30

S. Students

287/3.71

Decision-making

Faculty

41/3.10

0.442/0.12

0.034/-0.31

0.007/-0.43

Industry

55/3.22

S. Students

288/3.53

(continued)

Table 7.6 (continued)

Dim II: Cognition and thinking

Variable

Group

under

study

Sample

number

(N)/mean

Mann-Whitney (industry vs. faculty)

Mann-Whitney (industry vs. students)

Mann-Whitney (faculty vs. students)

System thinking

Faculty

40/3.33

0.602/0.11

0.035/-0.26

0.010/-0.35

Industry

55/3.42

S. Students

286/3.68

Critical thinking

Faculty

41/3.20

1.000/-0.02

0.010/-0.4

0.015/-0.38

Industry

55/3.18

S. Students

287/3.58

Innovation

Faculty

40/3.08

0.781/0.03

0.069/0.32

0.026/-0.35

Industry

55/3.11

S. Students

285/3.43

Design

Faculty

38/3.74

0.051/-0.39

0.005/-0.37

0.716/0.02

Industry

55/3.35

S. Students

284/3.72

Table 7.7 Statistics of 22 generic engineering skills satisfaction from S. Students, faculty members and industrial sector members perspectives “Dimension III”

Dim III: Professional and interpersonal

Variable

Group

under

study

Sample

number

(N)/mean

Mann-Whitney (industry vs. faculty)

Mann-Whitney (industry vs. students)

Mann-Whitney (faculty vs. students)

Professionalism

Faculty

41/3.33

0.424/-0.09

0.007/-0.12

0.088/-0.03

Industry

55/3.24

S. Students

286/3.36

Ethics

Faculty

41/3.56

0.481/0.06

0.452/-0.10

0.147/-0.16

Industry

55/3.62

S. Students

284/3.72

Adaptability

Faculty

41/3.24

0.837/0.01

0.004/-0.41

0.004/-0.42

Industry

55/3.25

S. Students

277/3.66

Communication

Faculty

41/3.63

0.258/-0.29

0.001/-0.53

0.071/-0.24

Industry

56/3.34

S. Students

286/3.87

Teamwork

Faculty

41/3.76

0.734/-0.12

0.207/-0.17

0.367/-0.05

Industry

56/3.64

S. Students

289/3.81

Foreign

language(s)

Faculty

41/3.63

0.691/0.04

0.586/-0.03

0.365/-0.07

Industry

55/3.67

S. Students

289/3.70

Table 7.8 Statistics of 22 generic engineering skills Satisfaction from S. Students, faculty members and industrial sector members perspectives “Dimension IV”

Dim IV: Business and management

Variable

Group

under

study

Sample

number

(N)/mean

Mann-Whitney (industry vs. faculty)

Mann-Whitney (industry vs. students)

Mann-Whitney (faculty vs. students)

Management

Faculty

40/2.98

0.903/0.02

0.004/-0.46

0.004/-0.48

Industry

55/3.00

S. Students

280/3.46

Leadership

Faculty

40/3.18

0.981/0

0.009/-0.42

0.006/-0.42

Industry

55/3.18

S. Students

281/3.60

Entrepreneurship

Faculty

40/3.85

0.510/-0.85

0.016/-0.40

0.002/0.45

Industry

55/3.00

S. Students

277/3.40

Hypothesis testing using Mann-Whitney U test showed a statistically significant difference in most skills as decision-making, problem-solving, system thinking, critical thinking, design skills, professionalism, adaptability, communication skills, management, leadership, and entrepreneurship in favour of senior students.

Faculty Versus Students

Both faculty and students have had an average score around 3 “neutral”. Hypothesis testing using Mann-Whitney U test showed a statistically significant difference between both groups for most of the skills such as math, physics, and science fundamentals, decision-making, system thinking, critical thinking, innovation, problem-solving, adaptability, management leadership, and entrepreneurship in favour of senior students as detailed in Tables 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8.

 
Source
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >

Related topics