Research Article 2025 Open access Catalogue record

Enhancing humanities and social sciences curriculum in engineering institutions by using interdisciplinary approaches

  • Minhui Li
  • Xu Liu

Cogent Education · Vol. 12 · Issue 1 · Article 2433831 · 3 Jan 2025

Read at the publisher

Abstract

High-quality humanities and social sciences (HSS) courses tailored to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students have become a crucial platform for expanding their thinking and communication abilities, as well as fostering humanistic awareness. This research explores the approaches employed by interdisciplinary HSS courses for STEM students and explores how these HSS courses cultivate the critical thinking, innovative capabilities, and social awareness of these students. It examines the integration of HSS courses into education of STEM. Of the 400 HSS courses offered, it examines 20, all rated by students as in the top 15%, and explores their different approaches to cultivating critical thinking, innovative capabilities, and social awareness in STEM students. Through research, it identifies three key findings: the process of student self-construction encompassing knowledge, skills, and literacy; the multifaceted role of HSS courses instructors as messengers, facilitators, and advisors; and the implementation of diverse evaluation strategies, including open-ended, non-standard, and peer-review methods. These findings underscore the significance of interdisciplinary HSS courses in fostering engineers’ social responsibility, humanistic literacy, and broad cognitive abilities. The study advocates for a holistic engineering education that integrates humanistic values and interdisciplinary knowledge.

Keywords

  • Humanities and social sciences
  • engineering education
  • student-centred learning
  • interdisciplinary courses

Details

Type
Research Article
Journal
Cogent Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
3 Jan 2025
Volume
12
Issue
1
Article number
2433831
ISSN
2331-186X (online)
Language
English
Access
Open access
Licence
CC BY 4.0
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2024.2433831

References (62)

  1. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2004.0009
  2. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n35p194
  3. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
  4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.11.001
  5. Barlett, P. F., & Chase, G. W. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainability in higher education: Stories and strategies for transformation. MIT Press.
Show all 62
  1. Bastedo, M. N. (2007). Sociological frameworks for higher education policy research. In Patricia J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts (pp. 295–316). Johns Hopkins University Press.
  2. https://doi.org/10.5642/jhummath.201901.11
  3. Blumberg, P. (2008). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
  4. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  5. Cai, Y., & Ding, F. (2019). From ability development to all-round development: a research on the strategies of curriculum construction and curriculum implementation of the general emerging engineering education]. China Higher Education Research, 10, 75–82.
  6. Cannon, R., & Newble, D. (2000). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges. A guide to improving teaching methods (4th ed.). Kogan Page.
  7. Ciesielska, M., Boström, K. W., & Öhlander, M. (2018). Observation methods. In M. Ciesielska and D. Jemielniak (Eds.), Qualitative methodologies in organization studies: Volume II: Methods and possibilities (pp. 33–52). Palgrave Macmillan.
  8. Chen, X. (2006). 对通识教育有关概念的辨析 [An analysis of some concepts about general education]. Higher Education Research, 03, 64–68.
  9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329042000208684
  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
  11. Combs, A. W., Richards, A. C., & Richards, F. (1976). Perceptual psychology: A humanistic approach to the study of persons. University Press of America.
  12. Davim, J. P. (Ed.). (2014). Engineering education: curriculum, pedagogy and didactic aspects. Chandos Publishing.
  13. Kauffmann, P., Hall, C., Dixon, G., & Garner, J. (2008, June). Predicting academic success for first semester engineering students using personality trait indicators. In 2008 annual conference & exposition (pp. 13–990). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2
  14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09819-7
  15. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x
  16. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2012.2190167
  17. Gaff, J., & Ratcliff, J. (1997). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. Jossey-Bass.
  18. Gao, X. (2011). 拔尖创新人才概念 [The concept of top-notch innovative talents]. China Higher Education Research, 10, 65–67.
  19. https://doi.org/10.2307/27798014
  20. Graham R. (2017). The global state-of-the-art in engineering education. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Report.
  21. Graham R. (2018). The global state of the art in engineering education. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Report.
  22. Hansen, R. A. (1977). Anxiety. In S. Ball (Ed.), Motivation in education. Academic Press.
  23. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1070
  24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1122
  25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790902987410
  26. Kim, J., Kim, E. G., & Kweon, S. O. (2018). Challenges in implementing English-medium instruction: Perspectives of Humanities and Social Sciences professors teaching engineering students. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 111–123.
  27. Krohn, W. (2010). Interdisciplinary cases and disciplinary knowledge. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 31–49). Oxford University Press.
  28. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0028
  29. Liang, C., & Yeh, H. T. (2014). The influences of personality traits on academic performance through imaginative capability: the differences between engineering and science. In J. P. Davim (Ed.), Engineering education. (pp. 1–23). Chandos Publishing.
  30. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00006.x
  31. Liu, T. (2012a). 大学通识教育的意蕴及其可能性[The implication and potential of university general education]. 高等教育研究, 33(07), 1–5.
  32. Liu, X. (2012b). 论“以学生为中心” [Thinking about the student-centered theories]. Higher Education Research, 33(08), 1–6.
  33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918770323
  34. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01336-9
  35. McCrae, R. R., & Greenberg, D. M. (2014). Openness to experience. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 222–243).
  36. Mo, S., & Liu, S. (2010). 从通识课程改革看人文教育与科学教育融合 [Looking at the integration of humanities education and science education from the reform of general education courses]. China Higher Education, 1(02), 48–50.
  37. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0192
  38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.719550
  39. Spinks, N., Silburn, N., & Birchall, D. (2006). Educating engineers for the 21st century: The industry view. The Royal Academy of Engineering (pp. 1–76).
  40. Sawyer, R. K. (2012). The science of human innovation: Explaining creativity. Oxford University Press.
  41. Schneider, C. G., & Schoenberg, R. (1998). The academy in transition: Contemporary understandings of liberal education. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9070-7
  43. Shen, W. (2013). 从博雅到自由—博雅教育概念的历史语义学分析 [From liberal arts to freedom: A historical and semantical analysis of the concept of liberal arts education]. 清华大学教育研究, 34(01), 39–48.
  44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760903457818
  45. Su, F., & Li, M. (2018). 基于OBE理念,构建通识教育课程教学与评估体系——以清华大学为例[Constructing a general education curriculum teaching and assessment system based on OBE concept: A case study of Tsinghua University]. 高等工程教育研究, 1(02), 129–135.
  46. Sweet, M., & Michaelsen, L. K. (Eds.). (2023). Team-based learning in the social sciences and humanities: Group work that works to generate critical thinking and engagement. Taylor & Francis.
  47. Tsinghua University. (2020). General education program for the class of 2020. https://www.zlc.tsinghua.edu.cn/info/1009/1168.htm
  48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12081
  49. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20347
  50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00013-5
  51. Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. John Wiley & Sons.
  52. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211073007
  53. Wright, T. A., & Walton, A. P. (2003). Affect, psychological well-being and creativity: Results of a field study. Journal of Business & Management, 9(1), 21–32.
  54. Xu, X., Shen, Y., Zhong, S., Jiang, Y., & Zhang, C. (2020). 新工科模式和创新人才培养探索与实践—哈尔滨工业大学“新工科’Π型’方案” [Exploration and practice of the new engineering model and cultivation of innovative talents: The “new engineering ‘π-type’ program” at Harbin Institute of Technology]. 高等工程教育研究, 1(02), 18–24.
  55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9465-4
  56. Yang, S., & Yu, D. (2007). 文化素质教育与通识教育之比较 [Comparison between cultural quality education and general education]. 高等教育研究, 28(06), 1–7.
  57. Yow, V. R. (2014). Recording oral history: A guide for the humanities and social sciences. Rowman & Littlefield.