Desktop version

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

Source

Industry Versus Students

Descriptive analysis showed that both senior students’ and industrial sector members’ means are around 4 “agree,” showing high agreement level towards these skills importance in the future with relatively higher means in favour of industry for all 4 dimensions pointing out skills importance by 2030 to achieve QNV 2030, as detailed in Tables 7.9, 7.10, 7.11 and 7.12.

Table 7.9 Statistics of 22 generic engineering skills importance in the future 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

41/4.59

0.759/0.03

0.042/0.32

0.163/0.29

Industry

60/4.62

S. Students

288/4.30

Interdisciplinary

engineering

knowledge

(breadth)

Faculty

41/4.54

0.937/-0.06

0.063/0.32

0.088/0.38

Industry

60/4.48

S. Students

287/4.16

Math, physics, and

science

fundamentals

Faculty

41/4.39

0.699/-0.11

0.311/0.25

0.185/0.36

Industry

58/4.28

S. Students

288/4.03

Practical experience

Faculty

41/4.46

0.057/0.32

0.044/0.35

0.827/0.03

Industry

59/4.78

S. Students

282/4.43

ICT experience

Faculty

41/4.41

0.756/-0.05

0.010/0.12

0.073/0.17

Industry

59/4.36

S. Students

288/4.24

Multidisciplinary

knowledge

Faculty

41/4.15

0.938/-0.05

0.552/0.01

0.666/0.06

Industry

60/4.10

S. Students

281/4.09

Table 7.10 Statistics of 22 generic engineering skills importance in the future 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)

Lifelong

learning

Faculty

41/4.63

0.189/0.09

0.012/0.38

0.383/0.29

Industry

60/4.72

S. Students

280/4.34

Problem-solving

Faculty

41/4.78

0.238/-0.16

0.582/0.21

0.088/0.37

Industry

60/4.62

S. Students

287/4.41

Decision

making

Faculty

41/4.63

0.594/-0.08

0.630/0.17

0.316/0.25

Industry

62/4.55

S. Students

289/4.38

System thinking

Faculty

41/4.44

0.820/-0.10

0.810/0.03

0.906/0.14

Industry

61/4.33

S. Students

289/4.30

Critical thinking

Faculty

41/4.68

0.525/-0.12

0.249/0.23

0.095/0.35

Industry

61/4.56

S. Students

290/4.33

Innovation

Faculty

41/4.51

0.616/-0.10

0.572/0.23

0.950/0.13

Industry

62/4.61

S. Students

289/4.38

Design

Faculty

39/4.56

0.887/0.01

0.837/0.20

0.984/0.19

Industry

60/4.57

S. Students

288/4.37

Table 7.11 Statistics of 22 generic engineering skills importance in the future 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

41/4.68

0.769/0.01

0.082/0.29

0.235/0.28

Industry

61/4.69

S. Students

285/4.40

Ethics

Faculty

41/4.71

0.666/0.05

0.078/0.33

0.303/0.28

Industry

62/4.76

S. Students

288/4.43

Adaptability

Faculty

41/4.49

0.564/0.04

0.107/0.27

0.460/0.23

Industry

62/4.53

S. Students

280/4.26

(continued)

Table 7.11 (continued)

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)

Communication

Faculty

41/4.76

0.713/-0.02

0.016/0.34

0.090/0.36

Industry

62/4.74

S. Students

284/4.40

Teamwork

Faculty

40/4.68

0.064/0.13

0.005/0.42

0.571/0.29

Industry

62/4.81

S. Students

289/4.39

Foreign

language(s)

Faculty

41/4.71

0.618/0.02

0.006/0.43

0.057/0.41

Industry

60/4.73

S. Students

289/4.30

Table 7.12 Statistics of 22 generic engineering skills importance in the future from 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

61/4.24

0.079/0.27

0.918/0.15

0.040/-0.12

Industry

61/4.51

S. Students

288/4.36

Leadership

Faculty

41/4.41

0.095/0.21

0.207/0.30

0.473/0.09

Industry

61/4.62

S. Students

286/4.32

Entrepreneurship

Faculty

41/4.37

0.778/-0.07

0.3740

0.583/0.07

Industry

60/4.30

S. Students

285/4.30

Hypothesis testing using Mann-Whitney U test showed a statistically significant difference in favour of industrial sector as practical experience, ICT skills, disciplinary engineering fundamentals, lifelong learning, communication skills, teamwork, and foreign language.

Faculty Versus Students

Descriptive analysis showed that both faculty members’ and senior students’ means are around 4 “agree,” showing high agreement level towards these skills’ importance in the future with relatively higher means in favour of faculty members for all dimensions except for management skills, which students showed higher means as detailed in Tables 7.9, 7.10, 7.11 and 7.12.

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

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

Related topics