Engineering curriculum review: processes, frameworks and tools Anna L Carew 1 , Paul Cooper 2 1 Australian Maritime College and CALT, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1399 Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia (Anna.Carew@utas.edu.au ) 2 School of Mechanical, Materials and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia (pcooper@uow.edu.au ) Abstract Periodic review and enhancement of curricula in engineering is vital to maintaining the quality and currency of undergraduate degree programs. The process of reviewing curriculum, however, is challenging on many fronts, and can appear overwhelming to those leading the review and implementing subsequent changes to the curriculum. Particular challenges include: involving all academic staff in the process to promote ownership of change; developing processes to guide the review toward improvements in the quality of content and of students’ experiences of being taught; and remaining mindful of the constraints and requirements of contextual factors like university policy, needs of external stakeholders and finite time and money for teaching. This paper describes selected processes and tools that the authors have adapted or developed and applied in engineering curriculum review at three different engineering faculties. Two of these faculties were Australian and a third South American. We explain each of the processes and tools, and then discuss how each has contributed to simplifying, representing and facilitating discussion about the unwieldy amount of information embodied in engineering curriculum. We also comment on the different responses to use of these tools and processes at the three engineering faculties in which they have been applied. Keywords: curriculum renewal, stakeholder consultation, program mapping, course objectives 1. DRIVERS FOR PERIODIC REVIEW OF ENGINEERING CURRICULUM Periodic review and enhancement of curricula in engineering is vital to maintaining the currency and quality of undergraduate degree programs. The need to review and update curriculum has numerous drivers including: the need to keep pace with the rapid evolution of technology; shifting social expectations and aligned shifts in legislation and regulation of engineering work; and the changing expectations of the regulators of and participants in higher education (eg. students, academics, government and accrediting bodies). Engineering is a field where innovations in technology mean that the currency and connection between engineering curriculum and the technology used in industry need constant attention. The fundamental concepts of engineering tend to be relatively stable (eg. conservation of energy, corrosion chemistry, fluid mechanics). Technological innovation, however, means that the examples we use to illustrate the application of such fundamentals need to keep pace with current applications in professional practice (eg. solar photovoltaic cells with nano-technology components, corrosion characteristics of new alloys, behaviour of particulates in reverse osmosis water treatment). A second element of currency is the need for engineering curriculum to remain up-to-date with emerging social and political pressures which increasingly influence the daily work of engineers. The social environment within which engineers work holds the professional accountable through a range of codes, legislation and regulation (eg. building codes and standards, emissions standards, occupational health and