Comparing European and Australian Students' Preferences for Engineering Roles Using Prefer Explore

Research Paper Recommended citation: Buskes, G., Langie, G., Craps, S., Male, S., & Khan, N. (2025). Comparing European and Australian Students’ Preferences for Engineering Roles Using Prefer Explore. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631706. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. COMPARING EUROPEAN AND AUSTRALIAN STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES FOR ENGINEERING ROLES USING PREFER EXPLORE G. Buskes a, 1 , S. Male b, S. Craps c, G. Langie d, N. Khan e a The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, ORCID: 0000-0002-7920-8052 b The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, ORCID: 0000-0001-9852-3077 c KU Leuven, LESEC, ETHER, Belgium, ORCID: 0000-0003-2790-2218 d KU Leuven, LESEC, ETHER, Belgium, ORCID: 0000-0002-9061-6727 e The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, ORCID: 0000-0003-3349-5006 Conference Key Areas: Engineering skills, professional skills and transversal skills; Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education Keywords: engineering education, engineering practice, engineering careers, professional identity ABSTRACT It is motivational for engineering students to perceive appealing future engineering roles as they enter their engineering studies. A team in Europe developed PREFER to support students in this process. In this study, the PREFER Explore tool is completed by 502 students at undergraduate students at an Australian university where the decision to study engineering or another science discipline remains open during first and second year. We explore the preferred professional engineering roles of this Australian cohort as yet less committed to engineering. As in Europe, the roles of Product Leadership and Operational Excellence are popular among the students. This is especially the case among those students most committed to engineering. Implications for curricula include the need to better engage students with Customer Intimacy roles. 1 Corresponding Author: G.Buskes, [email protected]u.au 1 INTRODUCTION On the threshold of their university studies, students are faced with the task to determine who they want to be in the future and which place they want to take in society. The importance of providing students opportunities to explore both themselves and the variety of engineering roles and make connections between them has been highlighted in several studies (Bennett & Male, 2017; Trevelyan & Williams, 2019). 1.1 Engineering identity in the curriculum In 2008, the University of Melbourne introduced an academic framework designed to provide students with a flexible and interdisciplinary education, based on the ‘Bologna model’. Students begin with a broad three-year undergraduate degree in one of seven areas: Arts, Biomedicine, Commerce, Design, Fine Arts, Music, or Science. Upon completing their undergraduate studies, students can proceed to specialised graduate studies designed to prepare them for advanced careers. Thus, students interested in a career in Engineering must first complete a three-year Bachelor of Science, majoring in one of the many ‘Engineering Systems’ majors available. If they obtain a minimum weighted average mark requirement in the Bachelor’s degree, they then satisfy the entry requirements to enrol in a corresponding two-year, accredited Master of Engineering degree. Such a model, while promoting flexibility in terms of choice of major, can cause issues with students failing to develop a sense of engineering identity, particularly when it is most crucial at the first-year level. Firstly, students commence their enrolment in a Bachelor of Science and are thus deemed a ‘Science’ student. There are only two first-year Engineering subjects available in the Bachelor of Science amongst an enormous suite of maths, science, computing, and breadth (nontechnical) subjects. Furthermore, the structure of the Bachelor of Science is such that students must keep multiple majors options open to them until the end of their second year of study. This further dilutes a sense of Engineering identity among the cohort, given that they can seamlessly transition from an Engineering Systems major to another major such as physics or computing. A different approach is taken at KU Leuven. Students interested in a career in engineering start immediately in an engineering programme. The first year is offered as a common programme after which students choose a specific major, e.g. chemical engineering, leading to a discipline specific engineering Masters degree. The university has been emphasizing the disciplinary future self-concept meaning that faculties are encouraged to support the students’ future self-related to their discipline (KU Leuven, n.d.). For example, the Faculty of Engineering Technology has been implementing the PREFER framework, describing different professional engineering roles and competencies, in its curriculum (Langie and Craps, 2020), strengthening the identification with engineering from day one in the programme. 1.2 Supporting engineering identity using PREFER The PREFER framework, a competency-based professional roles model for young engineers, was developed as part of a European project (Craps et al. 2021). The model was performed in Europe and validated in both higher education and industry and describes three discipline-independent roles that early career engineers can take on: engineers in a role focusing (1) on radical innovation (Product Leadership), (2) on process optimisation (Operational Excellence) and/or (3) on customised solutions (Customer Intimacy). Two self-tests were developed under this framework, which are able to get a first impression of students’ interests and preferences in engineering roles on the one hand (PREFER Explore), and their strengths and weaknesses on the other (PREFER Match) (Carthy et al. 2022). In particular, the PREFER Explore self-test is designed to create awareness about different engineering roles. The personal preference test aids students to identify their preferred engineering roles and to use this information to develop study and career development plans. The test is an ideal tool to use already with first year Bachelor students and trigger reflection about professional preferences and requirements. For first-year students at the University of Melbourne who are potentially struggling with developing an engineering identity, the PREFER Explore self-test will make them aware of a range of early career engineering roles, identify and motivate them to continue study Engineering to reach this role for their professional career. The activity enables them to start to think about a wide variety of engineering jobs available, independent of chosen discipline, and to envision their professional future. 1.3 Engineering identity development in context A comparative study of first year engineering students from TU Dublin (Ireland) and KU Leuven (Belgium) using the PREFER Explore tool (Carthy et al., 2021) revealed a strongest preference for Product Leadership roles, and a lowest preference for Customer Intimacy roles in both universities. Students at KU Leuven indicated a significantly higher preference for the Product Leadership role, in comparison with TU Dublin counterparts. The researchers posit that differences may be due to the nature of engineering work in the two countries, with manufacturing activity being more prevalent in Belgium. Manufacturing implies the production of a tangible product and may explain the greater degree of preference for such a role. An alternative approach was used to compare the role preferences of first year students across Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands (Saunders-Smits, Craps, Carthy, & Langie, 2022). Students were asked to express their preference for three fictional job vacancies reflecting the three different roles from the PREFER framework, and to indicate their perceived competence across a range of competencies required for each role. Across the three locations, a clear preference for the Product Leadership role emerged, being most dominant in the Dutch context. The authors suggest that this may reflect differences in curriculum design and focus at each university, and the influence of dominant and available industries and roles in each country. A third study explored preferred roles across Industrial Engineering and Management students across six European universities (Heyen et al., 2021). When considered cumulatively, a slight preference for the Product Leadership role was indicated, in line with previous studies. However, differences in role preferences were seen across regions (Southern, Western and Eastern Europe) and can be related to the varied academic (curricula) and professional (employment) contexts. For example, in locations where Customer Intimacy was the preferred role, curricula had a larger focus on management subjects, and young graduates typically expected to enter consultancy firms or take on project management roles. 1.4 Purpose of the study This study builds upon this previous work by extending the application of the PREFER framework beyond the European context to the Australian context, particularly for students studying a Bachelor of Science who might not yet be fully committed to an engineering major. This will contribute to an increasingly international picture of early career role preference, while also allowing further exploration of the influence of local academic and professional factors on students’ preferences. The study addresses the following research questions: 1. What are role preferences for first-year University of Melbourne Bachelor of Science students, and do they depend on their commitment to completing an Engineering Systems major? 2. How do engineering role preferences compare between the University of Melbourne, TU Dublin and KU Leuven? 2 METHODOLOGY Students in a first-year Engineering subject (in the Bachelor of Science) at the University of Melbourne completed a 50-minute engineering roles and competencies learning module delivered in a workshop setting as part of the subject content on engineering and its role in society, the details of which are given in Table 1. Table 1. How the PREFER Explore activity was conducted in-class Section Activity A. Introduction to engineering and engineering roles. The PREFER Explore tool. (30 mins) A1. Short class discussion prompted by questions: • What do engineers do? What are some typical tasks or roles? • What skills and behaviours are needed to be a successful engineer? (5 mins) A2. Facilitator introduces the PREFER framework and PREFER Explore tool. (5 mins) A3. Students individually complete an online self-concept assessment and the PREFER Explore survey. A personalised report is immediately generated and emailed to them. (20 mins) B. Group Discussion. (10 mins) B1. Students discuss their outputs with their group. • Is there a preferred profile for your group? • What are your common perceived strengths? What are the differences? • How might your role preferences and perceived strengths influence teamwork and tasks for team-based assessments in the subject? • Was this a useful way to think about what engineers do? • Was this a useful way to think about yourself as an engineer? C. Wrap Up. (10 mins) C1. Whole class discussion – sharing reflections on following questions: • Was this a useful way to think about what engineers do? • Was this a useful way to think about yourself as an engineer? • How might role preferences and perceived strengths influence teamwork and tasks for team-based assessments in the subject? C2. Wrap up by facilitator. • Emphasise that this is one way to think about professional roles and professional identity (you as an engineer). Note that it is not fixed but can vary over time. This module was motivated by content covered in lectures in weeks 1 and 2 relating to the engineering profession and how engineers fit into society. The PREFER Explore survey was a key component of this module and was designed to help students identify their preferred engineering roles and to develop study and career development plans. By answering 10 questions about their interests and preferences, students were able to discover to what extent each of the three roles aligns with their preferences. The survey was developed as an online test with immediate automated and personalised feedback to the participants. As a lead in to the PREFER Explore survey, students were asked about their ‘commitment to completing an Engineering Systems major’ via a 5-point Likert scale, with ‘1’ representing ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘5’ representing ‘strongly agree’. Students were also asked to indicate their planned major (if decided) and were required to provide their name and email address, which would not only facilitate an email to be sent to them with their PREFER Explore results but would also permit demographic information to be extracted from the student system for further analysis. Students also completed a self-concept assessment as part of the module, the results of which will be the subject of another study. Consistent with the study’s Human Research Ethics Approval, consent was requested of each student to include their responses as part of the research project via a check box. Data for students who declined permission were not included in the subsequent analysis, leaving 502 completed surveys for analysis. The research was conducted with approval from the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee application HREC 28669. 3 RESULTS AND INSIGHTS 3.1 Role preferences according to commitment to engineering As students enrolled in the Bachelor of Science may not have fully committed to a major, it is instructive to split the role preferences data according to the responses for the survey item reflecting their commitment to completing an ‘Engineering Systems’ major. Figure 1 clearly shows that students with a preference for optimisation (Operational Excellence [OE]) or innovation (Product Leadership [PL]) roles have a higher level of commitment to an Engineering Systems major than do students with a preference for Customer Intimacy (CI) roles. Fig. 1. University Melbourne student role preferences split by commitment to completing an Engineering Systems major (1 = least committed, 5 = most committed) (N = 502) Figure 2 shows the frequency of each role according to commitment to completing an Engineering Systems major, which indicates that PL has the highest preference, followed by OE, while CI has very little preference. This is true at every level of commitment to an Engineering Systems major, but much more pronounced among those with strong (i.e. a ‘4’ or a ‘5’) commitment. Fig. 2. Commitment to a University of Melbourne Engineering Systems major by professional engineering role preference (1 = least committed, 5 = most committed) (N = 502) 3.2 Role preference according to discipline Of the 502 survey responses, 348 students indicated either a preference for a particular engineering major, or were still deciding between several possible engineering majors. A breakdown of the preferred roles versus engineering discipline is shown in Figure 3, where ‘undecided’ represents those who were still deciding. Note that students selecting electrical and civil engineering majors were more likely to prefer an OE role than students selecting other disciplines, while other disciplines have the PL and OE role preferences reversed. Fig. 3. Overall role preference according to intended engineering discipline (N = 348) 3.3 Role preference according to context Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the three different roles at the University of Melbourne for those students who indicated an Engineering Systems major (N=348) and those obtained from KU Leuven and TU Dublin for first-year engineering students (Carthy et al, 2021). Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the three roles comparing the University of Melbourne (N=348), KU Leuven (N=294) and TU Dublin (N=198) Role University Mean SD Product Leadership University of Melbourne 2.09 3.70 KU Leuven 3.25 3.12 TU Dublin 2.60 3.20 Operational Excellence University of Melbourne 0.94 3.58 KU Leuven 0.03 3.83 TU Dublin 0.22 3.55 Customer Intimacy University of Melbourne -3.03 3.95 KU Leuven -3.28 3.72 TU Dublin -2.71 3.67 4 DISCUSSION RQ1 What are role preferences for first-year University Melbourne Bachelor of Science students, and do they depend on their commitment to completing an Engineering Systems major? There is a positive association between commitment to engineering and the Product Leadership (PL) and Operational Excellence (OE) roles, with the difference between the two strongest at the highest level of commitment. If engineers are to meet stakeholders’ needs, it is likely that more engineers with an affinity towards Customer Intimacy (CI) will be needed, in addition to those preferring Product Leadership and Operational Excellence. Engineering studies often focus on design and are therefore likely to reinforce identities that students hold aligned with the Product Leadership role preferences. It is important that throughout degrees students have opportunities to engage with all of the engineering roles, so that they are aware of the full range of roles and less likely to suffer identity conflict upon entering the workforce. It is notable that students selecting civil and electrical engineering majors were more likely than those in other disciplines to prefer Operational Excellence, while students selecting biomedical, mechatronics and mechanical engineering had a much stronger preference for Product Leadership. This is aligned with the numerous types of roles in which engineers in these disciplines can typically work in Australia. RQ2 How do engineering role preferences compare between the University of Melbourne, TU Dublin and KU Leuven? The results for the University of Melbourne are somewhat of a hybrid of the two European universities – Product Leadership (PL) mirroring KU Leuven and Customer Intimacy (CI) mirroring TU Dublin. Note, however, that the University of Melbourne had significantly more students select Operational Excellence (OE) than the European counterparts. In addition to being a Bachelor of Science degree, the University of Melbourne has more stringent entry requirements than its European counterparts explored in this paper which might help to understand this difference. 5 FUTURE WORK There are further opportunities to compare students’ role preferences across regions, to understand whether different admission systems, student diversity, and local industries are associated with different role preferences. This could contribute to informing decisions about admission processes, and also curriculum enhancements such as engagement with industry to support students with opportunities to develop well-informed professional identities. Analysis of role preferences by demographic will further support this analysis, in order to inform inclusive curriculum development. 6 CONCLUSION This paper described how the PREFER framework can be integrated into an Australian engineering curriculum to provide students with a realistic view of engineering work and the competencies required for different roles. The findings indicate a strong preference for Product Leadership and Operational Excellence roles, while Customer Intimacy roles are less favored, aligning with aspects of prior studies at both KU Leuven and TU Dublin. This study underscores the need for educational programs to offer diverse experiences that align with various engineering roles, ensuring students are well-prepared for the workforce. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of considering local industry demands and academic structures when designing curricula to support students' career development. By integrating tools like the PREFER framework into educational settings, institutions can better support students in exploring their professional interests and developing a robust engineering identity. This research contributes to an international understanding of early career role preferences, providing a foundation for further exploration of how different contexts shape engineering students’ career aspirations. 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of Dr Lionel Lam, Huey Yee Chan, and Professor Ray Dagastine for assisting with the gathering of student PREFER data, implementing the workshop activity and facilitating the in-class discussions. REFERENCES Bennett, D., & Male, S. A. (2017). An Australian study of possible selves perceived by undergraduate engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 603-617. doi:10.1080/03043797.2016.1208149 Carthy, D., Craps, S. & Gaughan, K. (2021). Engineering students' preferred roles: Are they stable, are there gender differences? 48th Annual SEFI Conference, 20-24 September 2020, Enschede, The Netherlands. doi:10.21427/v89m-tw20 Carthy, D., Craps, S., Langie, G., Gaughan, K., Bowe, B. (2022). A situational judgment test for engineers to evaluate their professional strengths and weaknesses. In: SEFI Proceedings 2022, (160-170). ISBN: 978-84-123222-6-2.