A Systematic Approach to Implementing Complex

Problem Solving in Engineering Curriculum

Chia Pao Liew1,2,4, Siti Hawa Hamzah2, Marlia Puteh3, Shahrin Mohammad2,4 and
Wan Hamidon Wan Badaruzzaman2,5
1 Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
liewcp@tarc.edu.my
2
Engineering Accreditation Department, Board of Engineers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
sitihawabthamzah@gmail.com
3 Centre for Engineering Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia

marlia.kl@utm.my
4 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia

shahrin@utm.my
5 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

wanhamidon@ukm.edu.my

Abstract. Over the years, there are various reports that confirmed the importance
of complex problem solving in the workplace. Complex problem solving is the
top identified skill to thrive in the 4th Industrial Revolution and emphasised in the
Washington Accord’s 12 Graduate Attributes. However, in most cases, engineer-
ing educators often fail to design complex engineering problems to equip the stu-
dents with the mastery of this skill in preparing them for the workforce. This
paper attempts to present a systematic approach for engineering educators in de-
signing assessments with complex engineering problems. Methods of qualitative
analysis was employed namely field notes from accreditation site visits to the
Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs); document analysis on the guidelines by ac-
creditation bodies; and extensive literature review on various learning theories to
support the implementation of complex problems. The results showed that engi-
neering educators have poor understanding of the attributes of complex problems
and often failed to construct complex problems for their courses. The proposed
approach has outlined two strategies in addressing the problems. Firstly, it de-
tailed out the attributes of complex engineering problem as guidance for the HLIs
in implementing the engineering curriculum. Secondly, it identified the most ap-
propriate learning theory, appropriate teaching and delivery methods, as well as
suitable courses to address complex engineering problem solving. The approach
is heuristic in nature with an iterative process in observing the attainment of this
important skill.

Keywords: Complex engineering problem solving, ill-defined problem, Wash-

ington Accord

adfa, p. 1, 2011.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1272
1 Introduction

Over the years, various reports have confirmed the importance of complex problem
solving in the industry. For instance, the World Economic Forum (WEF) [1], has iden-
tified 10 critical skills one needs in order to thrive in the 4th Industrial Revolution -
Complex problem solving is the top skill listed by the WEF. Not only that, complex
problem solving was also emphasised in the Washington Accord’s 12 Graduate Attrib-
utes [2] and the Engineering Accreditation Council, Malaysia’s (EAC) accreditation
manual. The EAC requires that engineering programmes which are seeking for accred-
itation must prepare graduates for future technological and societal changes, and able
to acquire new knowledge and apply to new problems [3]. Unfortunately, the common
problems encountered in engineering programmes are often well-defined problems [4],
not authentic industry-based problems. It is important to note that the roles of engineers
are differentiated from the technologists or technicians by their ability to deal with com-
plex problems [2].
Davidson and Sternberg [5] states that “well-defined problems are those problems
whose goals, path to solution, and obstacles to solution are clear based on the infor-
mation given” and “complex problems are characterised by their lack of a clear path to
solution. Such problems often lack a clear problem statement as well, making the task
of problem definition and problem representation quite challenging.” In the process of
solving well-defined problems in engineering, students learn to formulate the known
and unknown quantities into equations, solve these equations to find the values of the
unknown and validate the values [4]. This linear process suggests that solving problems
is procedural which requires memorisation and repetition, a platform that emphasises
the importance of getting answers rather than analysing the decision-making process.
In contrast, complex problems can lead to multiple revisions of the problem represen-
tation in order to find a single most appropriate solution.
According to Fatin et al. [6], complex engineering problems are often encountered
in design-based courses or projects with the seven attributes as defined by the Wash-
ington Accord in Table 1. Regrettably, in most cases, these projects often lack real is-
sues of industry environment; and engineering educators often fail to design complex
engineering problems in assessing students’ mastery of the skill. The authors further
conducted a focus group interview on engineering educators to evaluate their under-
standing on the attributes of complex engineering problems, ironically, only a handful
of them understand the attributes.
The seven attributes of complex engineering problems defined by the Washington
Accord [2] are identical to the nature of the problems solved in the industry. These
attributes can be used to compare and contrast the problems unraveled in the industry
with those problems that are exposed in the classrooms. From that standpoint, the pre-
sent study is aimed at explaining the nature of the problems which engineering students
must be trained in order to adapt to the industrial sector’s problems and solutions.
In summary, the objective of the present study is to develop a systematic approach
to implementing complex problem solving in engineering curriculum. In addition, the
study supports the initiatives promoted by the Ministry of Education via its publication,

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1273
Framing Malaysian Higher Education 4.0 [7] in producing future-proof graduates and
as well as improving students’ ability to deal with complex engineering problems.

2 Literature Review

There are intercorrelations between the Washington Accord’s complex engineering

problem solving, knowledge profile and graduate attributes. This section will begin by
explaining these relationships to facilitate the implementation of complex engineering
problem in the engineering curriculum.
The graduate attributes (henceforth referred as WA) is an agreement between the
accreditation bodies responsible for accreditation or recognition of professional engi-
neering undergraduate degree programmes in its signatory countries. The list of gradu-
ate attributes (12 of them – listed as WA1-WA12 in Figure 1) was agreed by all signa-
tory countries for benchmarking of standards for engineering education. The attributes
are also the exemplars of outcomes expected of graduates who graduated from an ac-
credited programme in any signatory countries [8]. It was noted that the WA are sup-
ported by the knowledge profile statements (WK1 to WK8), the levels of problem solv-
ing (WP) and 1complex engineering activities (EA) as shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Graduate attributes, knowledge profile, complex engineering problem solving and com-
plex engineering activities

The knowledge profile supports the first eight (8) of the twelve WA (WA1 to WA8).
It is meant to provide additional guidance on curriculum design and review to the HLIs
[2]: WK1 – Natural sciences; WK2 – Mathematics; WK3 – Engineering fundamentals;
WK4 – Engineering specialist knowledge; WK5 – Engineering design; WK6 – Engi-
neering practice (technology); WK7 – Role of engineering in society; and WK8 – Re-
search literature.

1 Complex engineering activities are not discussed in this paper

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1274
 The first four components of the knowledge profile (natural sciences, mathematics,
engineering fundamentals and engineering specialist knowledge) are related to content
knowledge. However, engineering specialist knowledge is not usable without the know-
how (i.e., application of knowledge). Hence the next three components (engineering
design, engineering practice (technology) and comprehension of engineering in society
are related to the application of knowledge. The last component, research literature re-
lates to the ability to source related knowledge from the literature. Out of the eight
components of the knowledge profile, only six are included for complex engineering
problem solving as shown in Table 1, i.e., “Cannot be resolved without in-depth engi-
neering knowledge at the level of one or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6 or WK8)
which allows a fundamentals-based, first principles analytical approach”. WK1, WK2
and WK7 are excluded because they are not considered as in-depth engineering
knowledge. To illustrate, WK1, natural sciences requires students to highlight the prin-
ciples and laws in demonstrating the understanding of a phenomenon, however, this
undertaking is often too detailed to be applied in engineering activity.
Table 1 illustrates the attributes of complex engineering problems for a Washington
Accord’s compliance undergraduate engineering programme. In order to be classified
as a complex problem, the programme must demonstrate the first attribute, the depth of
knowledge and several other attributes [2]. Students’ ability to deal with complex en-
gineering problems is emphasised in seven (out of the twelve) associated WA’s Grad-
uate Attributes, namely, Engineering Knowledge, Problem Analysis, Design or Devel-
opment of Solutions, Investigation, Modern Tools Usage, Engineer and Society, and
Environment and Sustainability.

Table 1. Range of problem solving

No. Attributes Complex Engineering Problems

1 Depth of knowledge re-
quired
2 Range of conflicting re-
quirements
3 Depth of analysis required
4 Familiarity of issues
5 Extent of applicable codes
6 Extent of stakeholder in-
volvement and level of
conflicting requirements
7 Interdependence
Cannot be resolved without in-depth engineering
knowledge at the level of one or more of WK3, WK4,
WK5, WK6 or WK8 which allows a fundamentals-
based, first principles analytical approach.
Involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical, engineer-
ing and other issues.
Have no obvious solution and require abstract thinking,
originality in analysis to formulate suitable models.
Involve infrequently encountered issues
Are outside problems encompassed by standards and
codes of practice for professional engineering.
Involve diverse groups of stakeholders with widely var-
ying needs.
Are high level problems including many component
parts or sub-problems.

With the above understanding, according to Jonassen [9], different learning theories
are appropriate for different levels of knowledge acquisition; behaviorism and cogni-
tivism are better approaches at the beginner’s level while constructivism is appropriate

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1275
as the learner moves to more advanced levels. Schon [10] highlighted that as students
gained more experience with a given content, they progress from a low-to-high
knowledge curve from “know-what” to “know-how” and finally to “reflection-in-ac-
tion”. In another words, behaviorism approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the
content of engineering (know-what); cognitivism approach is useful in teaching prob-
lem-solving techniques where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situa-
tions (know-how); and constructivist approach is best suited to dealing with ill-defined
or complex problems (reflection-in-action) [11].

2.1 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study shown in Figure 2 is developed based on
the alignment of learning theories to the level of problem solving. Based on the above
discussed literatures, cognitivist learning theory is appropriate for developing problem-
solving skills that require higher-order thinking which are confined within the first man-
datory attribute of complex engineering problems, i.e., “Cannot be resolved without in-
depth engineering knowledge at the level of one or more of WK3, WK4, WK5, WK6
or WK8); while constructivist learning theory is appropriate for first mandatory and the
rest of the attributes of complex engineering problems as listed and described in Table
1.
To summarise, the objective of the present study is to develop a systematic approach
for implementing complex engineering problem solving in engineering curriculum by
addressing the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the issues faced by engineering educators in implementing complex
problem solving in the engineering curriculum?
RQ2: How to implement complex problem solving in the engineering curriculum?

Fig. 2. Conceptual framework

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1276
3 Methodology

This study applied simple qualitative analysis by focusing on the field notes taken
from accreditation site visits to 14 engineering programmes offered by different HLIs
in Malaysia in 2017 and 2018 by the first author. The field notes were taken to identify
the issues in implementing complex problem solving in the HLIs’ engineering curricu-
lum. Apart from the field notes, analysis of the documents and guidelines from accred-
itation bodies was also performed. The document analysis along with the literature re-
view were to support the development of a systematic approach to implementing com-
plex problem solving in engineering curriculum.

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Issues Faced by Engineering Educators

Table 2 shows some of the reflections of the field notes taken by the first author
during the accreditation site visits in 2017 and 2018 on various engineering pro-
grammes offered by different HLIs. The field notes highlighted the discussion between
the panel reviewers and engineering educators during the accreditation site visits.

Table 2. Field Notes from Accreditation Site Visits

Institu-
Reflection Theme
tion
A It appeared to me that the Integrated Design Project is not Lack of understand-
offered in the programme to expose the students to solve ing on the attributes
complex engineering problems. Currently, the pro- of complex engi-
gramme claimed that the students were exposed to solve neering problems
complex engineering problems through mini projects and
assignments, unfortunately, these assessments were found
to be lacking of complexity.
B It is commendable that the Design Project is multidisci- Lack of understand-
plinary-based with the involvement of at least one team ing on the attributes
member from the School of Computer Science to solve of complex engi-
open-ended problems in electronic and communication neering problems
engineering. At the end of the project, each group of stu-
dents are required to produce a prototype and a technical
report. However, these projects do not consider con-
straints such as societal, environment and sustainability in
the design work which are the determining factors for
complexity.
C It was observed that the open-ended laboratory experi- Lack of understand-
ments are prescriptive in nature which involve procedural ing on the attributes
measurement and equipment set up. It is conclusive that of complex engi-
complex engineering problems have not been imple- neering problems
mented in the laboratory activities.

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1277
 Table 2 (Continued).

Institu-
Reflection Theme
tion
D The Integrated Design Project is lacking in terms of com- Lack of understand-
plexity and mechatronic engineering analysis. The depth ing on the attributes
of analysis in the modelling of mechatronic system design of complex engi-
as well as a more structured element of computer pro- neering problems
gramming are not present in the project.
E A majority of the lecturers did not portray satisfactory un- Confusion with
derstanding of the implementation of complex engineer- complexity and tax-
ing problem solving. In addition, they did not satisfacto- onomy among engi-
rily embrace the use of taxonomy in their assessment neering educators
preparation. They seemed to be confused with the terms,
complexity and taxonomy.
F It appeared to me, the terms, complexity, taxonomy and Confusion with
depth were used interchangeably in the discussion on the complexity and tax-
design of continuous assessments. What do we need to onomy among engi-
ensure in the design of different types of continuous as- neering educators
sessments, complexity, taxonomy or depth?

Reflections from Institution A, B, C and D suggest that engineering educators dis-

played poor understanding of the attributes of complex engineering problems hence
failed to construct complex engineering problems for their courses. Secondly, there is
a confusion with the terms, complexity and taxonomy among the engineering educators
as shown in excerpts from Institution E and F.
The findings indicate that seven (7) attributes of complex engineering problem solv-
ing shown in Table 1 need to be defined to allow for effective implementation of com-
plex problem solving in the engineering curriculum.

4.2 Defining the Attributes of Complex Engineering Problems

The document analysis from two accreditation bodies, Canadian Engineering Ac-
creditation Board (CEAB) and Engineering New Zealand (EngineeringNZ) resulted in
a more detailed description for each attribute of complex engineering problems. In or-
der to be classified as a complex problem, it must have the first attribute, depth of
knowledge and some or all of the other attributes [2].
In–depth knowledge means knowledge gained from courses or learning activities
beyond the introductory instructional level while the first principles are the fundamental
concepts or assumptions on which a theory, system, or method is based [12]. In engi-
neering, the first principle starts directly at the level of established laws of chemistry,
physics and mathematics. For example, in applying detailed theoretical knowledge, one
must be able to demonstrate understanding of the first principles to establish a workable
mathematical or theoretical model. This also relates as to why natural sciences and
mathematics are not used to address complex engineering problem solving.

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1278
 The second attribute - range of conflicting requirements refers to the constraints
placed to resolve the problems and conflicting demands in developing a design [13].
For example, graduates need to be able to identify the strength or weakness of the prob-
lem solution; the solution or design required by stakeholders may require innovative
and creative solution comparative to the ideal engineering solution; and the critical fac-
tors such as economics of scale, safety, environment issues, aesthetics, etc.
The third attribute, depth of analysis refers to the ability in producing multiple solu-
tions to meet functional specifications and to compare the solutions against the problem
objective in selecting the best concept [13]. The importance of teamwork must be
stressed because creative solutions to technical problems are not solved by individuals
but by a team of people from different technical backgrounds who bring different per-
spectives to the problem.
According to Engineering NZ [13], the fourth attribute requires the extent to which
the problem is routinely encountered and resolved using well-understood practices. The
problem could be a new problem that is not previously encountered or a familiar prob-
lem with unique issues that made resolution difficulty level increases.
The fifth attribute, extent of applicable codes refers to how the existing standards or
codes dictate the solution [13]. Students may apply engineering skills to address some
parts or all of the problem that were not clearly prescribed by standards, codes or prac-
tices.
The sixth attribute, extent of stakeholder involvement and level of conflicting re-
quirements refers to how the stakeholders’ interests and requirements impact the prob-
lem [13], the interaction with affected stakeholders to resolve the conflicts, and so on.
Finally, the seventh attribute - interdependence refers to problems which include
many sub-problems or sub-systems. The problem should be able to be mathematically
broken down to smaller components [12].
The above descriptions on the attributes should provide some guidance to the engi-
neering educators in implementing complex problem solving in the engineering curric-
ulum.

4.3 Ideal Courses for Implementing Complex Engineering Problems

The International Engineering Alliance (IEA) [14] states that “engineering problem
is a problem that exists in any domain that can be solved by the application of engineer-
ing knowledge and skills, and professional skills; and engineering activities include but
are not limited to: design; planning; investigation and problem resolution; improvement
of materials, components, systems or processes; engineering operations and mainte-
nance; project management; research, development and commercialisation”. The first
statement highlights that an engineering problem cannot be solved solely by the appli-
cation of engineering knowledge and skills but also with the use of professional skills.
These professional skills include teamwork, communication, lifelong learning and
managerial skills support the social constructivism theory of learning where learning
takes place due to the students’ interaction in a group. The second statement highlights
the types of engineering activities that take place in the industry which can be used as

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1279
the reference for engineering educators to construct complex engineering problems for
their courses [15].
Industry-based integrated design project employed Problem-based Learning (PBL)
teaching method to provide students with the opportunity to apply their skills and
knowledge toward developing a robust understanding of what it means to be an engi-
neer [16]. It supports students to make transition from classroom-based activities to
professional communities of practices [17]. Working with a supervisor from the indus-
try in a type of collaboration, students are challenged with a real-world problem. Indus-
try-based integrated design project is an example of constructivism theory of learning.
The final year project or commonly known as research project is another avenue to
implement complex engineering problems. It is one of the best means of introducing an
investigative research-oriented approach to engineering studies [3] and sourcing of
knowledge externally from the real-world. It involves review of open research literature
which challenges students to interpret new information, perform critical analysis, form
personal opinions and judgements, and learn independently. Open research literature is
one of the assessments that employs constructivist technique [9].
Industry training or work-based learning provides opportunities for students to en-
gage in experiential education, integrating theory with work experience [18]. It pro-
vides students with knowledge base and skills to help them translate isolated and ab-
stract concepts into practical applications of that knowledge [19]. The training is an
exciting platform for students to practice their complex engineering activities, thereaf-
ter, their communication skills, both written and oral can be assessed.
Laboratory experiences are one of the important elements in engineering education,
bridging the gaps between engineering theories and real practices through cultivation
of hands-on skills. In open-ended approach, the problem may have multiple solutions
and there is no obvious solution [20]. Being a subset of problem-based learning, open-
ended laboratory focuses on student’s ability to design experiments, identify the varia-
bles or results or information to be collected and identify the appropriate instruments
for the assigned problem. This approach suits the need to produce engineering gradu-
ates that are self-directed, reflective, demonstrate ability to integrate knowledge, think
critically, practice life-long learning and work collaborative with others [21].
The abovementioned courses strongly addressed the knowledge profile such as
WK5, WK6 and WK8 required under the first attribute, Depth of Knowledge of com-
plex problem solving. Engineering fundamental (WK3) and engineering specialist
knowledge (WK4) courses could also be used to implement complex problem solving
by addressing real-world issues.

4.4 A Systematic Approach to Implementing Complex Problem Solving in

Engineering Curriculum

This study intended to explain the attributes of complex engineering problem solving
and to prepare engineering students to solve industry-based or complex problems. The
understanding of these attributes would assist engineering programmes to design learn-
ing experiences to better prepare their graduates to meet the challenges of WA and the
4th Industrial Revolution.

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1280
 Figure 3 shows the proposed systematic approach to implement complex problem
solving in engineering curriculum as a result of the methodology undertaken by the
authors. The approach provides a starting point with draft-type guidelines on how to
design assessments with industry-based or complex problems.

Fig. 3. A Systematic Approach to Implementing Complex Engineering Problem Solving

The approach begins by emphasising on the understanding of the attributes of the

complex engineering problems to enable engineering educators to contrast the existing
classroom problems with requirements of industry-based or complex problems.
Constructivist learning theory emphasised on the ability to elaborate on and interpret
information; and the transfer of knowledge is facilitated by authentic tasks related to
real-world problems [11]. It was generally agreed [9] that constructivist approaches are
well-suited to advanced courses where students have the advanced knowledge needed
to deal with complex problems having acquired the introductory knowledge by objec-
tivistic approaches (behaviorist and cognitivist). Hence the chosen courses to address
complex engineering problems are typically from the advanced level such as integrated
design project, research project, industry training, open-ended laboratory experiments,
etc.
Teaching methods employed by constructivists evolved around situating tasks in
real-world contexts, work-based learning (coaching students), collaborative learning to
develop and share different views, social negotiation (debate, brainstorming, discus-
sion), reflective awareness, among others.
Next, it is important to validate if the assessments encompass the attributes of a com-
plex problem by simple mapping and brief explanation on how these attributes are ad-
dressed.
Finally, since there are numerous variables affecting individual students’ ability to
solve complex problems and also impossible to take all them into the account, the ap-
proach is heuristic in nature with an iterative process to be included. In this case, the
attainment of outcomes ought to be observed for continuous improvement.

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1281
5 Conclusion

The qualitative analysis on the field notes showed that engineering educators dis-
played poor understanding of the attributes of complex engineering problems and con-
fused with the terms, complexity and taxonomy; and failed to construct complex engi-
neering problems for their courses. Hence in order to address the first research question,
the current study explained the different attributes of complex problems that resemble
industry or real-world problems. Understanding these attributes would help the engi-
neering educators to design assessments with the complexity required to prepare grad-
uates to meet the expectations of potential employers and the Washington Accord, and
to embrace the challenges of the 4th Industrial Revolution.
It was found that the constructivist approaches are well-suited to deal with complex
problems that often delivered through advanced courses such as integrated design pro-
ject, research project, industry training and open-ended laboratory experiments that
evolved around situating tasks in real-world contexts, work-based learning, collabora-
tive learning and social negotiation. On the other hand, behavioral and cognitive ap-
proaches are more suited for introductory knowledge acquisition where the former can
facilitate mastery of contents and the latter is useful in teaching problem-solving tech-
niques where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations. The proposed
approach addresses the second research question by providing a starting point with
draft-type guidelines on how to design assessments with industry or ill-defined or com-
plex problems. It is heuristic in nature hence an iterative process must be built where
students’ outcomes ought to be observed for improvement.

6 References
1. World Economic Forum (2016). The 10 Skills You Need to Thrive in the Fourth Indus-
trial Revolution. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/the-10-skills-
you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/. (Accessed: 3 March 2018).
2. IEA (2013). Graduate Attributes and Professional Competencies Ver 3: 21 June 2013.
Retrieved from http://www.ieagreements.org/ assets/Uploads/Documents/Policy/Gra
duate-Attributes-and-ProfessionalCompetencie s.pdf. (Accessed: 29 May 2018).
3. EAC (2017). Engineering Programme Accreditation Manual 2017. Malaysia:
Engineering Accreditation Council.
4. Jonassen, D., Strobel, J. and Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday Problem Solving in
Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95:
139–151.
5. Davidson, J. and Sternberg, R. (2003). The Psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
6. Phang, F. A., Anuar, A. N., Aziz, A. A., Mohd Yusof, K., Syed Hassan, S. A. H. and
Ahmad, Y. (2018). Perception of Complex Engineering Problem Solving Among
Engineerıng Educators. In: Auer M., Kim KS. (eds) Engineering Education for a Smart
Society. GEDC 2016, WEEF 2016. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,
627, 215–224.
7. Hamisah Tapsir, S. and Puteh, M. (2018). Framing Malaysian Higher Education 4.0:
Future-Proof Talents. Malaysia: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1282
 8. Liew, C. P., Puteh, M. and Mohammad, S. (2014). Best Practices in Washington Accord
Signatories. With Reference to the Accreditation Criteria, Systems and Procedures.
Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing
and Engineering, Kuching, Malaysia, 278–282.
9. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating Constructivistic Learning. Educational Technology,
31(9), 28–33.
10. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating The Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11. Ertmer, P. A. and Newby, T. J. (2013) Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism:
Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Special Issue on
Research Update on Key Training and Mentoring Topics, 26(2), 43–71.
12. CEAB (2015). A Guide to Outcomes-Based Criteria (Draft). Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian
Engineering Accreditation Board.
13. Engineering NZ (2017). Requirements for Accreditation of Engineering Education
Programmes (Rev. 3.1). Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ).
Retrieved from https://www.engineeringnz.org/.../123/Programme_Accreditation_
Requirements.pdf. (Accessed: 7 June 2018).
14. IEA (2011). Glossary of Terms Ver 2: 15 September 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/IEA-Extended-Glossary.pdf. (Accessed: 8
June 2018).
15. Liew, C. P. (2019). A Sustainable Framework for Assessing the Engineering Accredita-
tion Council’s Programme Outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia.
16. Johri, A. and Olds, B. (2011). Situated Engineering Learning: Bridging Engineering
Education Research and the Learning Sciences. Journal of Engineering Education,
100(1), 151–185.
17. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life.
New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
18. Blair, B. F., Millea, M. and Hammer, J. (2004). The Impact of Cooperative Education on
Academic Performance and Compensation of Engineering Majors. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93(4), 333–338.
19. Noyes, C. R., Gordon, J. and Ludlum, J. (2011). The Academic Effects of Cooperative
Education Experiences: Does Co-Op Make A Difference in Engineering Coursework?
Proceedings of 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Vancouver, BC:
American Society for Engineering Education, 22.1428.1421–1422.1428.1414.
20. Cullin, M., Hailu, G., Kupilik, M. and Petersen, T. (2017). The Effect of An Open-Ended
Design Experience on Student Achievement in An Engineering Laboratory Course.
International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 7(4), 102–116.
21. McKinnon, M. M. (1999). Core Elements of Student Motivation in PBL. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 78, 49–58.

ICL2019 – 22nd International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning

Intercontinental Bangkok, Thailand, 25-28 September 2019
Page 1283