Two opposing forces are pushing institutions of higher technical education into a tight corner. The first force is the rising industry demand for new competencies like IoT, engineering systems thinking, design thinking and entrepreneurship. Second, there are increasing concerns about student disengagement. The academic community is responding to these challenges by introducing changes in the curriculum.
The 2018 AICTE curriculum is a case in point. It has proposed a reduction in the number of credits and an increase in industry-oriented courses so that undergraduate students are given space to pursue research and innovation. While the intent is good, a mere change in curriculum is not likely to address the problem. But implementation of the new curriculum without changes in pedagogy and practice may further disengage the students. It is important for engineering students to play a proactive role in this transition. Otherwise, they will be left with a degree, but no real competence. Let us see why.
A combination
In a recent industry conference, many leaders spoke about the imperatives for Industry 4.0. One of the key challenges pointed out, is the ability to translate emerging technologies like IoT into business value. Similarly, in the recent national conferences organised by ISRO, leaders were advocating the need for strong systems engineering competencies among young engineers, because, today, even sub-systems are complex and multi-disciplinary in nature. When the industry leaders refer to competency, they mean a combination of knowledge, skills and behaviours that emerges from practice in a certain real-world environment. They need engineers who can quickly acquire these and get into the practice.
However, the academic model is not tuned to address the above need due to the following reasons. First, is the process of interpreting the need. The industry need is interpreted as packets of knowledge or courses to be added, modified or deleted. The skill and behavioural elements take a back seat. And course certification, in most cases, is about testing memory of facts and rules, not application of knowledge to real-world problems.
Second, the pedagogy in engineering education has hardly changed over the years. Technology-enabled learning and access to a variety of digital knowledge bases has not fundamentally changed the process of classroom engagement.
Third, is the inadequate appreciation of practice and learning by doing. Practice in an academic context is largely viewed as application of theory and accorded a lower status. Practice is not seen as a new form of knowledge.
Fourth, is the inadequate attention to project work by the students and the faculty. Final-year undergraduate students are more concerned about their future and use the project time to prepare for competitive exams, and the faculty also do not see potential for publications or patents in the projects. As a result, the little space provided for gaining competency is also not utilised.
Even if academic institutions make a sincere effort to adapt to the above challenges, the process of change is bound to create confusion in the minds of students. This is likely to happen both in existing and new institutions, public and private. New institutions may seem even more chaotic as they seek to develop their brands and institutional relations. Unfortunately, NIRF ranking may not reveal these micro-level instabilities. If students are not prepared for this transition, they can easily lose confidence in the system and the profession. On the other hand, if students play a proactive role in this process they can gain an extremely valuable competency — dealing with complexity, which commands a premium in the job market.
The author is Dean (Design, Innovation & Incubation), IIITDM Kancheepuram.
