A. A. ILEMOBADE, C. F. MHILU* AND P. A. OLUBAMBI

1. PRELIMINARY STUDY: ENGINEERING EDUCATION ASSESSMENTA DESKTOP STUDY, DRAFT CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND QUESTIONNAIRE A. A. ILEMOBADE, C. F. MHILU* AND P. A. OLUBAMBI *Department of Energy Engineering, University of Dar es Salaam For NEPAD S&T CPA and SARUA

2. SARUA-NEPAD STUDY Question In order to quicken economic development within the Southern Africa region through industrial/technological growth, how can tertiary institutions’ engineering programmes stimulate / develop / amplify manufacturing skills in their engineering students? • Context • Africa’s low and declining levels of industrialization and increasing dependence on exports – a general manifestation of Africa’s qualitatively poor engineering base • Tertiary institutions - crucial in building engineering capacity • Tertiary institutions experiencing complex challenges • Tertiary institutions’ links to industry are generally weak

3. SPECIFIC TASKS FOR PREP STUDY Capacity Assessment Exercise • To undertake a desk study and from this, develop a draft conceptual framework for assessing the status of engineering education, training and capacities in SADC universities • To develop questionnaires based on the framework for capacity assessment of departments of engineering in regional universities & institutes in the 14 countries of SADC. • Present the results of the preliminary study to the round-table.

4. NEED FOR CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Would provide useful details about: • current programmes and curricula • the quality of engineers produced in each institution • performances of different engineering professions within industry • possible entry points for instructional innovations (e.g. manufacturing input) • how to measure year-to-year effectiveness of eng programmes (future evaluations)

5. ENG EDUCATION CHALLENGES • Engineers that will position SADC (a region with abundant resources) in the vanguard of global technological development • Need to identify the region’s critical skills requirements – most institutions offer range of traditional engineering programmes • Limited active strategic relationships with stakeholders - industry, sister institutions, government (triple helix) • Improvement/retention of the quality of student output while attracting quality student input • Staff development • Brain drain • Decreasing government funding per student with increasing student enrolments

6. ASSESSING ENG EDUCATION: PARAMETERS Curriculum • Curriculum type (content focused, outcomes focused, breadth or depth) (see ECSA balance), renewal & modification critical to curriculum relevance Teaching and Learning • Facilitating communication, involvement and interaction among students, lecturers and course content using interactive / innovative teaching and learning methods (e.g. service learning, peer learning, group work, project-based teaching)

7. ASSESSING ENG EDUCATION: PARAMETERS Engineering popularity - Increasing / decreasing despite global demand? • Attractiveness / popularity and entry numbers hinged to insufficient maths & science preparedness especially in previously disadvantaged populations • Entry limited by the declining quality of facilities required to make good engineers • Limited career awareness - critical to popularity Industry involvement • In evaluating the performance of engineers • In evaluating how well engineering curricula meets industry demands of its engineers / technicians?

8. ASSESSING ENG EDUCATION: PARAMETERS Accreditation • assesses infrastructure, staff/student ratios, curricula, outcomes Collaboration • Research -, administrative -, teaching - based • Between tertiary institutions, government, industry • Local, regional, continental, global • Between researchers, departments, faculty, institutions • Collaborations influence communication infrastructure, student learning (team work, design methodologies), research culture, cultural and lifelong experiences • Active examples: (i) UNAM - WITS; (ii) SANTED NEW (iii) UDSM – UEM – MAK;

9. ASSESSING ENG EDUCATION: PARAMETERS Collaboration: UNAM – WITS Case Study • No full-fledged engineering programme at UNAM • MOU to ease PEP & B.Sc. Student transfers to WITS Eng • MOU to facilitate staff collaboration in teaching & research • Highlights • Decreasing PEP & B.Sc. enrolments and throughput • Industry preferences influenced bursaries, influenced skill • Friends and family / Alumni • Competition from other SADC tertiary institutions • Harmonization of secondary qualifications • ‘Creaming’ of academically deserving students by host • Historic collaborations (race, language) versus logical • Recognised regional centres of excellence in specific areas • Common interests & needs, mutual benefits, political will

10. DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSMENT Highlights • Multiple input (Student, Institution / faculty, Industry) • Generic (region/university irrespective) • Broad not manufacturing focused (specificity required for target programmes) • Idealistic in the generation of some data (viz-a-viz confidentiality, availability)

11. (ENGINEERING) STUDENT BASED INPUT • To be administered to a sample of engineering students in each target programme • Next generation of academics etc (question 29ff)

12. INSTITUTIONAL BASED INPUT

13. INDUSTRY BASED INPUT

14. FURTHER WORK • Revise framework/questionnaires for eng education assessment and/or agree on principles guiding assessment • Agree on possible entry points / emphasis for ‘manufacturing’ skills to be developed in engineering programmes • Suggest possible engineering programmes to be involved with the NEPAD CPA initiative from the region • Identify any existing/emerging hubs and suggest possible hubs representing regional networks of engineering education and research excellence

15. FURTHER WORK • Suggest which industries and businesses should be partners and recommend models/strategies for industry and business partnerships in existing or new engineering curriculum • Agree on the structure, composition and TOR for a study team for the immediate longer assessment study

16. SUGGESTIONS / QUESTIONS / ??? • Redefine ‘Manufacturing’ to ‘Entrepreneurship’? • Manufacture = make/produce on a large scale using machinery…….(mechanically oriented) • Corporate Entrepreneurship • positive pro-active, enterprising, self-sufficient culture • CE adds to the university and society by being innovative, creating organizations, making money, looking for self sufficiency and positive interaction with the broader society

17. SUGGESTIONS / QUESTIONS / ??? • ?? • Models • Collaborative postgraduate (M.Sc., Ph.D.) programme in target areas (e.g. Engineering Entrepreneurship) • Australia model – BSc (Eng) + B.Com after 5/6 years • Emphasize Outcomes for engineering graduates • Review the current state of industrial training for engineering students