Embedded Files
Background
Background
Improving our student success and learning experience means working together across disciplinary and contextual boundaries to understand and develop ourselves as educators ....
Improving our student success and learning experience means working together across disciplinary and contextual boundaries to understand and develop ourselves as educators ....
The Stellenbosch Engineering Education Project Impact Evaluation (SEEPIE) initiative was submitted as a proposal for ethics clearance in 2019 to enable the faculty to collectively respond to institutional programme renewal objectives, as articulated in the SU Vision 2040 document. Engineering academics face a steep learning curve and workload challenges that hinder their engagement in formal, independent education-focused research projects. Their 'primary' disciplinary research is valued above educational research, and induction into a different discourse and methodological approach takes time and commitment. SEEPIE was conceived as an umbrella opportunity to provide access to engineering academics who wanted to innovate in the classroom, and to follow up on the impact of different student-centred educational strategies, designed to support student success..
The SEEPIE initiative emerged from the Recommended Engineering Education Practices (REEP) project, approved by faculty management, as a formal opportunity to share effective practices and build a faculty-wide Engineering Education community of practice. Effectively speaking, SEEPIE gave academic and professional staff in the engineering faculty the opportunity to design, implement, evaluate and disseminate educational initiatives, whether non-funded, or funded through small research grants (SU FIRLT/FINLO programme) and national Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) University Capacity Development Grants (UCDG), while REEP offered them a community and platform through which to share these practices.
The Stellenbosch Engineering Education Project Impact Evaluation (SEEPIE) project sought to determine the impact of Stellenbosch University Faculty of Engineering REEP projects aimed at improving undergraduate and postgraduate curricular, teaching, learning and assessment practices between 2015 - 2025. The initiatives and their evaluation constitute over 100 case studies, many of which have been published in peer-reviewed, accredited journals and conference proceedings, and have entailed the collaboration of 33 academic staff members in and beyond the faculty [12 in the Core Team and 21 collaborators].
This portfolio represents the work of these engineering education champions, and is being submitted for consideration of a NUTA 2025 Team Teaching award.
Conceptual Framing
Conceptual Framing
The engineering academics and researchers showcased in this portfolio have drawn on a wide range of scholarly principles, theories and methodologies to gather, review, analyse and share curricular and pedagogical artefacts, and stakeholder feedback via surveys and semi-structured focus group interviews. These methods are framed by two key models: The Council on Higher Education (CHE) curriculum principles, and the holistic Cognitive-Affective-Systemic (CAS) model.
All our Faculty educational initiatives also take into account the four Council on Higher Education curriculum dimensions (CHE, 2013), illustrated below, which emerged as a context-responsive set of guidelines during the development of our national Higher Education Qualification sub-Framework (HEQsF). The CHE report highlights the need to address “serious knowledge gaps” at entry level, and to “scaffold students’ epistemic development beyond foundation provision”. These two principles were initially the focus of our collective SEEPIE-REEP core group initiatives, of which there are numerous examples in our reflection on knowledge section of this portfolio. The new Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) engineering standard (August 2023) – used to evaluate and accredit our engineering degree programmes every four years - has offered the opportunity to focus on the second set of curriculum principles, namely: “enhancement towards the world of work” in the context of diversity, inclusivity and sustainability; and “enrichment of key literacies”, including digital and AI technologies.
The Cognitive-Affective-Systemic model:
The Cognitive-Affective-Systemic model:
Many STEM-based educators find theories and discourses from the social sciences that frame educational research alienating (Auret & Wolff, 2018). As the dedicated engineering faculty Teaching and Learning Advisor with a PhD in Education (specifically engineering education), I (Karin Wolff) realised that all holistic education work could essentially be framed by a head-heart-hand approach. This is echoed in many theories of learning. I designed a model to integrate the different theories while managing the UNISA Western Cape division of Learning Facilitation in 2013-2014. This model was first published in my collaborative work with colleagues (Gilmore, Wolff & Bladergroen, 2017) presented at the 4th biennial South African Society for Engineering Education (SASEE) conference.
The CAS model (Gilmore et al., 2017)
The CAS model (illustrated by the graphic above) is explained as follows: The educator’s mandate is to provide forms of cognitive, affective and systemic learning support (Tait, 2000) which are intended to benefit the student ‘cumulative’ (Maton, 2013) learning experience in the epistemological, ontological and/or praxis domains of the curriculum (Barnett, 2000). These domains map to Bloom's (1956) Learning Objectives in the Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor domains. Collectively, these domains are implied in the engineering qualification Graduate Attributes, approved by the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), and which are aligned to the Washington Accord. The CAS model supports our Higher Education mandate (DHET, 2013) to enable the development of Knowledge, Skills and Citizenship in our students.
Context
Context
The CAS model has proved particularly useful as a needs-analysis tool, enabling academic staff (who are often ‘content’ focused) to take into account the systemic/psychomotor (doing) and affective (being/becoming) domains of holistic learning. As an overarching model, it works in conjunction with a number of theoretical and methodological frames, dependent on the focus of a particular initiative. The model is used as a means to problematise and interrogate pedagogical and curricular strategies designed to enable our graduates to achieve the 11 Graduate Attributes dictated by the Bachelor’s in Engineering standard.
In conjunction with the CAS model, the CHE principles and other supporting theories have afforded the faculty a holistic conceptual framework that allows for richer interrogation of student learning needs, the student and staff experience, and the effective analysis of the impact of engineering education interventions and initiatives.
A Pipeline Model starting with our Students
A Pipeline Model starting with our Students
We see our context from the holistic perspective of what we refer to as a 'Pipeline' model - with students guiding our focus as they enter from diverse social and cultural contexts into our particular HE and social context, and eventually leave for the professional world of work. Many, however, do not complete this journey through the curricular space. To understand SU's vision of the transformative student experience (SU Vision 2040), we started with a community of educators and support staff (in and beyond the faculty), and have both organically and systematically grown a significant community of practice in the engineering education space - the only one of its kind in South Africa. More about this later...
Pipeline model for approaching the Engineering Education Curriculum context
The Faculty Community of Practice (CoP) has consistently and responsively sought to identify specific stumbling blocks in our programmes as well as proactively addressed our mission: to cultivate graduates that develop innovative and sustainable solutions to society’s complex engineering problems. The question of how we develop such graduates has continued to be refined and investigated under the leadership of the Vice Deans Teaching since 2017.
[Browse our STUDENT EXPERIENCE webpage for examples of some of our initiatives]
Student Context
Student Context
Prof Anton Basson (Vice Dean Teaching - Engineering 2012-2020) had collected all our student enrolment and success data as of 2009, and these data offered a golden opportunity to interrogate the question of student access and success. In 2021, Prof Celeste Viljoen (Vice Dean Teaching and Quality Assurance - Engineering 2020 - current) requested that we utilise UCDG funds to look at the efficacy of our Extended Degree Programme (EDP). The faculty-based Teaching & Learning Advisor - Karin Wolff - and colleague Deborah Blaine (SU Teaching Fellow) embarked on a quantitative and qualitative analysis that provided significant insights:
EDP students represent an average of 6% of the total faculty enrolments, of whom we only graduate half .
Our most successful graduates in both EDP and mainstream (MS), who stand the best chance of graduating in minimum time, enter the system with >80% in NSc Mathematics, Science and Overall achievement.
41% of all MS enrolled students graduate in the prescribed minimum time of 4 years, and 13% of EDP enrolled students graduate in their allocated 5 year period.
30% of our MS students take 5 years or more to complete their degrees.
Performance patterns for 1st generation and previously disadvantaged students are reminiscent of pre-1994 patterns, as is still the case across South African engineering faculties.
There are distinct patterns of 'bottleneck' module repeat and failure rates which suggest the transition is not being made from foundational sciences into the engineering sciences.
These patterns of performance were probably surprising to many colleagues, but the REEP community had already noted concerns based on observational and anecdotal data. The subsequent qualitative interrogation of the data involved examining student patterns of performance based on different schooling quintiles, language groups, gender, race and particular social period of enrolment (for example, whether they started during the #FeesMustFall period of 2015-2016). The discovery that we have had more isiZulu speakers than isiXhosa speakers enrolling for engineering, for example, helped to inform strategies on how to think about multilingualism in our context. The finding that females with significantly higher mathematics scores may opt to transfer to the Science faculty by the third year of their engineering programme confirmed the national engineering epistemic transition challenge (Shay et al., 2016): a foundations first approach in the 1st two years can enable strong mathematical and scientific thinkers to feel comfortable in the ostensible stability of a fixed and certain, problem-and-unique solution context. The messiness and complexity of the engineering sciences, coupled with technologies and design represents a significant step change in thinking. The insights gained from the quantitative cohort analysis (across EDP and MS programmes) further supported the intentions of the REEP team and assured their fellow academics that we were working from a 'legitimate' basis (Engineers love their numbers ;)). The discussion of observations and review of work already implemented supported a deeper, qualitative approach among the CoP to understanding what these data meant. Using the CAS model in its broadest sense, the group and collaborators on various projects [see REEP Team collaborators] set about refining existing and designing new forms of support.
Cognitive Support: Foundations
A key finding from the quantitative study was that insufficient attention is being paid to supporting foundational and key epistemic transitions across our programmes for ALL students, both on 4-year and 5-year programmes.
One of the earliest initiatives to address the 'foundations' question came from a group of newly appointed Chemical Engineering lecturers in 2016 (Margreth Tadie, Robbie Pott, Neill Goosen and Petri van Wyk) who had observed key knowledge gaps in their very large 1st year class (850+ students). The embedded video to the right provides an overview of this initiative by Margreth Tadie. This group - through PREDAC and small project funding - engaged proactively with the T&L advisor and redesigned a theory-informed randomised online quiz bank, which has significantly supported student learning.
This innovative work has been presented and published internationally.
[Browse our CURRICULUM & KNOWLEDGE webpage for examples of some of our approaches & initiatives]
Tadie, M., Pott, R., Wolff, K., Goosen, N., & Van Wyk, P. (2018). Expanding 1st year problem-solving skills through unit conversions and estimations. Global Engineering Education Conference (pp. 1041-1049). Tenerife: IEEE. doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363344
Colleagues such as these formed the beginnings of the emerging REEP community of practice. Initially, the focus was on building further foundational support. Staff with smaller FINLO/FIRLT-funded research projects and those who had indicated interest in particular initiatives under the UCDG-supported faculty projects came together to design a strategy to support the first two criteria of the CHE curriculum principles: support for building foundational knowledge in the natural sciences and mathematics, and scaffolded learning to support epistemic transitions to engineering sciences and knowledge. Through a two year collaboration between different module stream teams, the REEP team designed and curated optional revision and foundational material to support the following knowledge domains: Chemistry, Strength of Materials, Mathematics, Physics and Material Science.
The support material has been collated and is presented via our institutional LMS, STEMLearn, as entirely optional, subject-specific online quizzes, with built in formative feedback. Students can self-assess their knowledge in these domains as many times as they want, identifying and addressing knowledge gaps. We monitored the student engagement with these resources between 2023-2024, and were happy to see that some students are finding the time to tackle the quizzes. At a secondary level of impact, the lecturers who were involved in conceptualising and setting up the quizzes were provided with an invaluable opportunity to interrogate their module content, and to identify and reflect on the core concepts that students need to understand as they learn. Time will tell what kind of impact these resources may have on student success.
[Browse our ASSESSMENT webpage for examples of some of our approaches]
The student platform - only available to Stellenbosch Engineering staff and students via the STEMLearn LMS - [Tools for Academic Success in Engineering] is managed by Natalie White (Student Advisor in the Deans Division) in conjunction with the Vice-Dean: Teaching and Quality Assurance, Celeste Viljoen (since 2020) and the core REEP team. It has become a key platform for sharing the REEP team resources designed to support student learning across the CHE curriculum principle stages.
And then came Covid 19...
Student Support
Student Support
Affective & Systemic Support
It was while working on foundational support for our students that the entire world became more aware of mental health and affective support needs when Covid-19 hit us all. Using the CAS model, a number of REEP team members engaged in research across the country and in our faculty on the impact of Emergency Remote Teaching & Learning on staff, postgraduates and undergraduates. A concerned colleague, Thinus Booysen, collaborated on an Academic Stress Management survey run across 2021 and 2022. This anonymous survey saw over 1000 responses across the two iterations. Student feedback indicated a clear need for both Affective and Systemic support.
Liaising with the Centre for Student Counselling and Development, key counsellors, psychologists and a core REEP team, the Dean's Division set about designing an engineering student platform to enable deeper understanding of the systemic elements on their engineering programme, but primarily to provide affective support. Key resources and engineering counsellor videos on aspects such as stress and anxiety are available to all our students, and these have seen distinct uptake. Students are able to book sessions with counsellors directly via the platform.
Examples of the support pages for Affective and Systemic student needs.
Each section links to a page with explanatory counsellor videos,
links to support workshops, and useful advice.
Faculty research on mental health in engineering
Faculty research on mental health in engineering
Korsten, N., Wolff, K. & Booysen, M.J. (2021). Time for mentally healthy engineering students. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2021 Conference, Madrid.
Affective Support
Affective Support
Systemic Support
Systemic Support
Institutional Context
Institutional Context
A very important part of the student journey is in the institutional context. We are privileged to work in one of the top Engineering and Technology faculties in the world with cutting-edge research, some of the country’s most elite students, and very efficient systems [News].
However, we are often in the national spotlight for our lack of transformation. A number of the REEP team have been privileged to be directly involved with initiatives to understand our contextual challenges, such as the 10-year cohort analysis on our mainstream (4-year) and extended curriculum (5-year) programmes [through the UCDG project presented in the Student Context section], which culminated in a faculty report on who is succeeding and what we are doing to support those who are not. These initiatives have been detailed under the Cognitive, Affective and Systemic support sections above.
Yet another key initiative has been engagement on the SU CIRCoRe task team on the compulsory core offering designed to address diversity, equity and inclusion challenges. Both of these transformation related projects have seen the support of Deborah Blaine, Wibke de Villiers and the entire Dean’s Division team. As the faculty advisor, I (Karin Wolff) was privileged to conduct a global literature review on the concept of Transformation, and I presented this with my colleague, Wibke de Villiers (our current faculty Transformation Committee chairperson) at the university's CIRCoRe Symposium in November 2024 (see video on the right).
Engineering faculty Transformation Approach
Engineering faculty Transformation Approach
Wolff & De Villers (2024) A CoP approach to Transformation in Engineering. CIRCoRe Symposium. Stellenbosch University.
There are significant challenges globally in this regard. Various regions have different conceptions of 'transformation', and for the most part the Global North, West and East have 'assimilatory' approaches to minorities or distinct groups with different practices. South Africa is very different. We have been grappling with the inclusion of the majority for decades. This is a conversation that we as the REEP group have begun to engage in, and which takes courage.
Professional Context
Professional Context
The engineering professional context is a complex one. As a signatory to the Washington Accord, the Engineering Council of South Africa stipulates the criteria for the Bachelor's in Engineering programmes. These criteria have undergone several changes at the international level, with the most recent being the 4th iteration of the International Engineering Alliance Graduate Competency Guidelines (2021). The research conducted for the CIRCoRe project has been instrumental in enabling a more informed view of the new engineering standard, because the terms "diversity" and "inclusivity" have been explicitly integrated into the range statements of the 11 key Graduate Attributes of the new engineering standard. For example:
GA 6: Demonstrate competence to communicate effectively and inclusively on complex engineering activities, both orally and in writing, with the engineering community and society at large, taking into account cultural, language, and learning differences.
GA 8: Demonstrate competence to function effectively as an individual and as a member or leader in diverse and inclusive teams, and in multi-disciplinary, face-to-face, remote and distributed settings.
These newly worded descriptors are further supported by explanations such as: "Awareness of the need for diversity by reason of ethnicity, gender, age, physical ability etc. with mutual understanding and respect, and of inclusive attitudes".
The Stellenbosch University Engineering programmes are aligned to international standards, and are based on the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Graduate Competency profiles (2021).
The Engineering Graduate Attributes
Problem solving
Application of scientific & engineering knowledge
Engineering design
Investigations, experiments and data analysis
Engineering methods, skills and tools, including information technology
Professional and technical communication
Sustainability & impact of engineering activity
Individual, team and multidisciplinary working
Independent learning ability
Engineering professionalism
Engineering management
[Browse our PROFESSION & SOCIETY webpage for examples of some of our approaches]
For engineering staff across the country, engagement with these new Graduate Attributes has been difficult. The complexity of our large-class, resource-constrained and diverse classroom contexts has seen many academics asking how it is possible to "prove that I have taught my students to work inclusively", for example. Fortunately, many of our REEP team have participated in activities of the Innovative Engineering Curriculum project [IEC] - an international collaboration, funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering, and of which I (Karin Wolff) am a core team member and mentor. The IEC project team have run webinars and workshops over the past 4 years, with the last phase having focused explicitly on interrogating the new GAs. A key ethic of the IEC project and the REEP team is that of research-informed practice sharing. Interactive workshops, such as the one in our faculty in 2024 (right) are often the only way to meaningfully engage with difficult concepts and to have those difficult conversations.
Faculty Teaching Morning workshop on the new Graduate Attributes.
Our challenge ahead as a faculty and community is the integration of meaningful strategies into our current pedagogical practices so as to foster inclusive practices that go beyond lip service to diversity.
Knowledge Practice Development
Knowledge Practice Development
Cognitive Support: Foundational Links
Following the Foundational knowledge focus on specific knowledge areas, the REEP team began to collaborate with lecturers from the Science faculty who service the engineering and applied mathematics modules. Over a period of two years, this sub-team has worked with key engineering academics to identify common mathematical stumbling blocks, perceptions and teaching challenges. Together, they have developed an innovative suite of explanatory videos linking engineering to science and mathematics (available to staff and students via 2025-TFASE: Understanding Mathematics in Engineering | stemlearn)
One example of these videos is the inspiring example of REEP collaboration on the Mathematics in your Engine(ering) video [right].
This collaboration has now been extended to the national space, where key academics from UCT, UP, NWU, CPUT and SU (right) recently met to share practices and devise strategies to address our collective desire to improve student outcomes in engineering.
Example of the collaborative explanatory Engineering Mathematics resources
Cognitive Support: Epistemic Transitions
Building on the initial Foundation support quiz design and curation, the REEP team engaged with the second key finding of the cohort analysis study, namely the 'bottleneck module' data. These were modules where the transition from natural science and mathematics into an engineering science was clearly problematic. Using Bernstein's (2000) concepts of knowledge structures, the REEP team sought to better scaffold the knowledge base in problematic modules such as Fluid Dynamics, Material Science and Thermodynamics.
Another key instrument to support epistemic transitions has been the Legitimation Code Theory 'Epistemic Plane' (Maton, 2014), which has been instrumental in enabling engineering staff to see the differences and links between fundamental principles, procedures, possibilities, people and places.
Many REEP team and collaborator initiatives are aimed at enabling cumulative learning and epistemic transitioning [Teaching & Learning] using active and peer learning strategies. A technique that has been particularly insightful is to engage students in focus group feedback on such initiatives, as per the initiative of Melody Neaves and Deborah Blaine in Material Science (right).
Melody Neaves & Deborah Blaine (2023). SU SOTL presentation on student focus group engagement.
Enrichment: Key literacies
The CHE curriculum design principle on key literacies integration a cross any curriculum defines these as disciplinary, academic, quantitative and digital literacies. The observation of challenges in literacy practices across these domains at national and international levels has long required attention. Craig McGregor (a REEP collaborator as of 2020) saw an opportunity in the Experiment Design component of a final year Engineering module to address these literacies. Students are expected to design an open-ended investigation, and are assessed against a Graduate Attribute to “demonstrate competence to design investigations and experiments”. The module requires students to both design an investigation as well as write a report, both of which have ‘final product’ and ‘ongoing process’ features. These two aspects in the two different contexts have significantly different literacy features.
Observing the historical performance on the module, in 2021 a new peer review component was added as a formative assessment where each member of a peer group grades a draft of the experiment design report and provides written feedback. The pedagogical intention was to build both ‘process’ and ‘product’ capabilities through peer learning and assessment, which is founded on sociocultural approaches to learning (Vygotsky, 1978). After the peer review component, the students were given a chance to improve the quality of their report based on the peer feedback, which is then submitted for summative assessment.
McGregor, C. & Wolff, K. (2024). Undergraduate engineering report writing - education support by peer review. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education. 22(3), 162-169.
The conceptual challenge for students in Engineering Report Writing is to conceptually separate ‘process’ and ‘product’. This challenge is exacerbated by very large classes that make providing meaningful feedback on report assignments virtually impossible for lecturers. The pedagogical consequence of this limited scaffolding through a student’s career is evidenced by the poor Engineering Report Writing skills of a significant fraction of the final year student cohort. The experience through this work shows that peer assessment, based around sociocultural approaches to learning, have the potential to contribute significantly to addressing this challenge.
Enhancement: The world of work
It has been clear for decades that there is a gap between what the academy does and what the world of work expects. The faculty has been turning to its alumni for insights every two years since 2016. Robbie Pott and Mieke de Jager decided to tackle the question of enriching our curricula with a focussed study on Chemical Engineering graduates, surveying them on what aspects of their undergraduate experience were useful, what skills should have been foregrounded, what aspects could be considered for change or update, and how their expectations met reality in the world of work.
Their study found that graduates appreciated the strong technical content of the curriculum, especially process design, as well as the development of generic competencies. They valued the personal development during their studies through working under pressure, developing a work ethic, practicing time management and grit. However, they suggested the following changes:
an emphasis on financial, economic, and business subject content,
development of leadership, management and interpersonal skills,
and stronger ties with, and integration of, industry into technical courses,
real-world practical application of knowledge and skills.
An emerging theme from the research is that educators could do more to align expectations to smooth the transition to industry. The REEP community has benefitted immeasurably from research such as this, since it gives insights into how we can better embed or integrate the world of work into the curriculum.
de Jager, M., & Pott, R. W. M. (2022, November). Graduates′ views on the curriculum and the transition to the world of work: skills, knowledge, and generic engineering competencies. In 2022 IEEE IFEES World Engineering Education Forum-Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
[Browse our TEACHING & LEARNING webpage for examples of some of our approaches & initiatives]
Philosophy
Philosophy
The REEP team philosophy has been 'holistic' development (head-heart-hand) since the beginning. However, changes over the past two decades in engineering education, globally, by way of amendments to key specifications and guidelines, has driven a renewed interest in the purpose of Higher Education. The well known 'contradictory roles' (Castells, 2009) have been threatening to pull HE in all directions, and mostly towards the labour market in the professions! These constant shifts have seen endless lists of demands on educators, from management, employers, institutional leadership, government and even students themselves. These 'lists' have emerged as criteria for achievement of a particular level of competency. They used to be called 'Exit Level Outcomes', but today they are called Graduate Attributes.
In our REEP context, frustration with the ever changing lists led to a deep dive into the literature on engineering education and the concept of Graduate Attributes (Wolff & van Breda, 2023). Simon Barrie (2004) characterised Graduate Attributes as the synergistic and multi-faceted inter-relationship between Scholarship, Global Citizenship and Lifelong Learning. He suggested that these are the three key attributes at the heart of HE, and that our mandate as educators is to enable their development through facilitating a reflective stance towards the SELF, KNOWLEDGE and the WORLD.
The Sydney Model of Graduate Attributes
The Sydney Model of Graduate Attributes
Barrie constructed this relational model highlighting key practices that holistically connect the SELF to forms of KNOWLEDGE which emerge from and are fed back to the WORLD. These stances may best be nurtured through reflective practices that enable you to ask Who am I? In this space (context & future profession)? Who are we? What do I know, what can I know? What does this knowledge look like in the world? Where does it come from? How does it work? What can I contribute to the world? The Sydney Model has become an invaluable tool in our REEP community to think about a more relational, integrated and synergistic approach to what it is we are trying to achieve, not only for our students, but for ourselves as educators.
Growth
Growth
Community of Practice approach
Community of Practice approach
In line with our ongoing ‘continuous improvement ethic’, the Engineering faculty has adopted a Community of Practice (CoP) approach to programme renewal that includes inter-departmental and inter-faculty collaboration, and is supported by the permission [SEEPIE Ethics clearance] to engage in theory-informed Engineering Education Research activities, by way of reviewing student engagement, performance and feedback, as well as focus group discussions with students and staff so as to collaboratively improve our student learning experience. Our ethic is one of engaging dialogically across stakeholder contexts, to put into practice an 'ubuntu' approach to curriculum renewal (Hlatshwayo et al., 2020). This approach has become a national one, including regular engagement with the professional bodies and our colleagues and students at other institutions.
Our teaching context sees staff who share one common feature with all other educators: juggling impossible workloads and “contradictory roles” (Castells, 2009). This workload came into the spotlight during the Covid-19 national survey on engineering educators and how they were coping. Using the CAS model, the survey revealed that academics were “emotionally exhausted”, “burnt out”, “overwhelmed”, “constantly fatigued”, and “struggling to balance work with parenting”.
The SEEPIE project and REEP community have contributed immeasurably to staff professional development in enabling them to extend their initial PREDAC (Professional Development) work into looking at ways to formally identify and address challenges in their curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment contexts, in some cases securing FINLO or UCDG grants to support the work. Stellenbosch University Engineering lecturer research outputs can be viewed in a Google Drive folder here: https://sites.google.com/view/reep-engineering-education/education-research
A key benefit, however, has been a space to think, try, reflect and know you are surrounded by others who care as much as you do about empowering your students to tackle the wicked and enormous challenges of our times!
The remainder of the portfolio is a duplicate of the faculty platform, with collaborating staff initiatives, case studies and approaches to curriculum, teaching, learning, assessment, and the profession. You are welcome to take a look at these sections, but for purposes of NUTA 2025 evaluation, only the Reflective Narrative and REEP Team pages are necessary for consideration.
Formal REEP Research Outputs
Formal REEP Research Outputs
Stellenbosch University Engineering Faculty Research Outputs 2017 – 2025
Pott, R., Wolff, K., & Goosen, N. (2017). Using an informal competitive practical to stimulate links between the theoretical and practical in fluid mechanics: a case study in non-assessment driven learning approaches. Education for Chemical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2017.08.001
Gilmore, J., Wolff, K. & Bladergroen, M. (2017). The night before the test: electrical engineering student use of online resources to prepare for assessment. The 4th biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education. Cape Town: SASEE
Basson, A., van der Merwe, A., Bladergroen, M., & Wolff, K. (2017). Stellenbosch University engineering faculty blended learning project: success factors for a faculty-wide initiative aligned with institutional strategy. Proceedings of ISERD International Conference. Rio de Janeiro: ISERD. Retrieved from http://www.worldresearchlibrary.org/up_proc/pdf/1055-15083255431-7.pdf
Auret, L., & Wolff, K. (2018). A control system framework for reflective practice. Global Engineering Education Conference (pp. 106-114). Tenerife: IEEE. doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363215
Louw, T., & Wolff, K. (2018). Experimenting with engagement: an intervention to promote active reflection during laboratory practicals. Global Engineering Education Conference (pp. 736-743). Tenerife: IEEE. doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363303
Tadie, M., Pott, R., Wolff, K., Goosen, N., & Van Wyk, P. (2018). Expanding 1st year problem-solving skills through unit conversions and estimations. Global Engineering Education Conference (pp. 1041-1049). Tenerife: IEEE. doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363344
Wolff, K., Dorfling, C., & Akdogan, G. (2018). Shifting disciplinary perspectives and perceptions of chemical engineering work in the 21st century. Education for Chemical Engineers, 24, 43-51. doi:10.1016/j.ece.2018.06.005
Dorfling, C., Wolff, K. & Akdogan, G. (2019) Expanding the semantic range to enable meaningful real-world application in chemical engineering. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(1), doi:
Wolff, K. & Booysen, M.J. (2019). The smart engineering curriculum. Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium. Cape Town: REES
Wolff, K., Van Breda, L. & Rodriguez, R. (2019). Trialling a problem-solving engineering learning environment. Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium. Cape Town: REES
Wolff, K., Basson, A.H., Blaine, D. & Tucker, M. (2019). Building a national engineering educator community of practice. Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium. Cape Town: REES
Wolff, K. (2019). Academic development Insights into Decolonising the Engineering Curriculum. In Quinn, L. (ed).Reimagining Curriculum: Spaces for Disruption. African Sun Media: Stellenbosch.
Pott, R., & Wolff, K. (2019). Using Legitimation Code Theory to conceptualize learning opportunities in fluid mechanics. Fluids. MDPI: Switzerland. doi:10.3390/fluids4040203
Wolff, K. (2021). Enabling theory-practice bridging in engineering education. In C. Winberg, S. McKenna & K. Wilmot (Eds.), Building Knowledge in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Lewis, C., Wolff, K. & Bekker, B. (2021). Supporting project-based education through a community of practice: a case of postgraduate renewable energy students. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 19-1.
Dalton, A., Wolff, K. & Bekker, B (2021). Multidisciplinary Research as a Complex System. International Journal of Qualitative Methods; doi/full/10.1177/16094069211038400
Kruger, K., Wolff, K. & Cairncross, K. (2021). Real, Virtual or Simulated: approaches to emergency remote learning in engineering. Computer Applications in Engineering Education DOI:10.1002/cae.22444
Wolff, K., Blaine, D. & Lewis, C. (2021). A cumulative learning approach to developing scholarship of teaching and learning in an engineering community of practice. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2021 Conference, Madrid.
Korsten, N., Wolff, K. & Booysen, M.J. (2021). Time for mentally healthy engineering students. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2021 Conference, Madrid.
Booysen. M.J. & Wolff, K. (2022). Exclusion from constructive alignment unmasked by emergency teaching. In Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, December 2021.pp 159-168. DOI: 10.52202/066488-0018
Dalton, A., Wolff, K. & Bekker, B (2022). Interdisciplinary Research as a Complicated System. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. DOI: 10.1177/16094069221100397
Wolff, K. (2022). Enabling Access To Scholarly Engineering Education Practices. In G. Young (Ed.), Academic development and its practitioners (pp. 209-229). SUN Press.
Wolff, K., Kruger, K., Pott, R. & De Koker, N. (2022). Conceptual nuances of technology-supported learning in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education. DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2022.2115876
Walton, J. & Wolff, K. (2022). Extending Shay’s double truth: toward a nuanced view of subjectivity and objectivity in assessment practices. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2121159
Wolff, K. & Winberg, C. (2022). Curricula under pressure. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2119079
Goosen, N., Korsten, N. & Wolff, K. (2022). Impact of Emergency Remote Teaching on postgraduate engineering learning. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2022 Conference, Cape Town.
Wolff, K., Dalton, A., Blaine, D., Viljoen, C. & Basson, A. (2022). Engineering Education themes in the Global North and South. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2022 Conference, Cape Town.
Venter, M. & Wolff, K. (2022). Online Forum participation before, during, and after remote learning. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2022 Conference, Cape Town.
Blaine, D. & Wolff, K. (2022). Leading holistic curriculum renewal in a South African engineering programme. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2022 Conference, Cape Town.
van Rooyen, M., Blaine, D. & Wolff, K. (2022). Leveraging digital tools to design an integrative hybrid learning experience. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2022 Conference, Cape Town.
Booysen, M.J., Coetzer, K. & Wolff, K. (2022). Self-efficacy in engineering design through peer review, self review, and interactive online tutorials. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2022 Conference, Cape Town.
Kruger, K. & Wolff, K. (2022). Enabling epistemic transitions by integrating virtual and physical laboratory experiments. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2022 Conference, Cape Town.
Matemba, E., Smith, L., Wolff, K., Inglis, H., Mogashana, D., Fouché, L., Gwynne-Evans, A., Campbell, A.L., Kwuimy, C., Nassar, S., Magara, I., Kloot, B., Hattingh, T., Raji, A., Musa, T. and Nyamapfene, A. (2023). Reflecting on a community of practice for engineering education research capacity in Africa: Where are we and where are we going? Special Issue in the Australasian Journal of Engineering Education on "Engineering Education Research Capability Development." https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2233340
Neaves, M., Blaine, D. & Wolff, K. (2023). Understanding student perspectives of a hybrid, integrative approach in a theory-rich module. Proceedings of the 6th biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education. Gauteng, SASEE.
Nyembe, W., Wolmarans, N. & Wolff, K. (2023). Closing the knowledge gap from conceptual to practical computer programming knowledge and skills: Activity systems of introductory computer programming courses. Proceedings of the 6th biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education. Gauteng, SASEE.
Schreve, K. & Wolff, K. (2023). First year engineering drawings summer school: Back to basics case study. Proceedings of the 6th biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education. Gauteng, SASEE.
Wolff, K., Basson, A., Basson, C., Gerber, F., Kumar, V., Abejide, S., Ngodwana, K., Dalldorf, T., Wimpenny, K. & Aslam, F. (2023). Towards an ubuntu pedagogy: Building engineering employability skills. Proceedings of the 6th biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education. Gauteng, SASEE.
Kamper, H., Niehaus, C. & Wolff, K. (2023) Using Machine Learning to Understand Assessment Practices of Capstone Projects in Engineering. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2023 Conference. Mexico.
Wolff, K. & Van Breda, L. (2023). The Complexity of Graduate Attributes in
Engineering for Industry 4.0 Contexts. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2023 Conference. Mexico.Blaine, D., Fussenecker, C., Niemann, J., Wolff, K. (2023). Did the Covid-19 Pandemic Improve Engineering Education?—A South African-German Perspective. In: von Leipzig, K., Sacks, N., Mc Clelland, M. (eds) Smart, Sustainable Manufacturing in an Ever-Changing World. Lecture Notes in Production Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15602-1_25
Burger, L. (2023). Automated flow detection in education: A methodology to measure flow from student feedback. Proceedings of the 6th biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education. Gauteng, SASEE.
Way, A., Wolff, K., Combrinck, R., & Van Wyk, A. (2024). Portfolios for the development of self-efficacy in engineering education. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education. 22(3), 190-195.
McGregor, C. & Wolff, K. (2024). Undergraduate engineering report writing - education support by peer review. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education. 22(3), 162-169.
Wolff, K. (2024). You Are Not Alone! Collaborative Professional Development of the Engineering Educator Gaze. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2024 Conference. Sydney.
Du Plessis, A., Tadie, M., Blaine, D., Wolff, K. & Viljoen, C. (2024). Fostering Belonging: The Impact of a Wise Intervention on Diverse Engineering Students. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2024 Conference. Sydney.
Van Wyk, A., Way, A., Wolff, K. & Combrinck, R. (2024).Overcoming Transfer Shock Across Educational
Institutions: From Technologist To Engineer. Proceedings of the WEEF-GEDC 2024 Conference. Sydney.Lewis, C., Wolff, K. & Bekker, B. (2025): Making the implicit explicit: operationalising occurrences of cognitive development in a postgraduate engineering Community of Practice, European Journal of Engineering Education, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2025.2449581
Hattingh, T., Smith, L. & Wolff, K. (2025). Global Challenges, Local Responses: Exploring Curriculum Reform in South African Engineering Education. Journal for Engineering Education. USA.
References
References
Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3).
Barrie*, S. C. (2004). A research‐based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 261-275.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.
Castells, M. (2009). The role of universities in development, the economy and society. Transcript of a lecture given by Manuel Castells at the University of the Western Cape.
CHE. (2013). A proposal for undergraduate curriculum reform in South Africa. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.
DHET. (2013). White Paper for post-school education and training. Pretoria: Department of Higher Education and Training.
Felder, R. M. (2012). Engineering education: A tale of two paradigms. In Shaking the foundations of Geo-Engineering education (pp. 9-14).
Gilmore, J., Wolff, K. & Bladergroen, M. (2017). The night before the test: electrical engineering student use of online resources to prepare for assessment. The 4th biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education. Cape Town: SASEE
Hanrahan, H. (2014). The evolution of engineering knowledge. In M. Young, & J. Muller (Eds.), Knowledge, expertise and the professions (pp. 109-127). New York: Routledge.
Hlatshwayo, M. N., Shawa, L. B., & Nxumalo, S. A. (2020). Ubuntu currere in the academy: a case study from the South African experience. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 5(1-2), 120-136.
IEA. (2021). Graduate Attributes and Professional Competency Profiles. International Engineering Alliance. Retrieved from International Engineering Alliance: http://www.ieagreements.org.
Kruger, K., Wolff, K. & Cairncross, K. (2021). Real, Virtual or Simulated: approaches to emergency remote learning in engineering. Computer Applications in Engineering Education DOI:10.1002/cae.22444
Lewis, C., Wolff, K. & Bekker, B. (2021). Supporting project-based education through a community of practice: a case of postgraduate renewable energy students. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 19-1.
Maton, K. (2013). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. Routledge.
Shay, S., Wolff, K., & Clarence-Fincham, J. (2016). Curriculum reform in South Africa: more time for what?. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL), 4(1), 74-88.
Wolff, K., Basson, A., Basson, C., Gerber, F., Kumar, V., Abejide, S., . . . Aslam, F. (2023). Towards an ubuntu pedagogy: Building engineering employability skills. Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education, (p. 284).
Wolff, K., Blaine, D., & Lewis, C. (2021, November). A cumulative learning approach to developing scholarship of teaching and learning in an engineering community of practice. In 2021 World Engineering Education Forum/Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF/GEDC) (pp. 310-318). IEEE.
Wolff, K., & van Breda, L. (2023, October). The Complexity of Graduate Attributes in Engineering for Industry 4.0 Contexts. In 2023 World Engineering Education Forum-Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse