Developing engineering leadership skills through student-led workshops in the context of engineering grand challenges

Abstract

Strong leadership skills and an understanding of the engineering role in both technological innovation and stewardship are required to address global problems such as the grand challenges. Incorporating leadership skills development and connecting leadership to a broad awareness of socio-technical responsibilities can be complex in what is a very full engineering curriculum. This study describes the creation of co-curricular student-developed and led online workshops as a mechanism to provide engaging and broadly accessible experiential learning activities to address this learning opportunity.

Full text

Developing engineering leadership skills through student-led
workshops in the context of engineering grand challenges
Nadine Ibrahim
a
, John Donald
b
, and Christine Moresoli
c
University of Waterloo, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
a
, University of Guelph, School of
Engineering
b
, University of Waterloo, Department of Chemical Engineering
c
Corresponding Author’s Email: jrdonald@uoguelph.ca
CONTEXT
Strong leadership skills and an understanding of the engineering role in both technological
innovation and stewardship are required to address global problems such as the grand
challenges. Incorporating leadership skills development and connecting leadership to a
broad awareness of socio-technical responsibilities can be complex in what is a very full
engineering curriculum. This study describes the creation of co-curricular student-developed
and led online workshops as a mechanism to provide engaging and broadly accessible
experiential learning activities to address this learning opportunity.
PURPOSE OR GOAL
Through this work, we look to demonstrate that student-developed and led online workshops
can effectively and efficiently provide experiential learning opportunities that can build
knowledge, skills and attitudes related to leadership development and technological
stewardship. Ultimately the goal is to demonstrate an effective and efficient methodology for
student engaged learning that can be incorporated in the engineering curriculum.
APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODS
Undergraduate engineering students created and led 90-minute online workshops that
combine leadership skills development (e.g., exploration of values, domains of influence) and
an introduction to the Canadian Engineering Grand Challenges (CEGC) such as “Inclusive,
safe, and sustainable cities”. Workshops are delivered to students at Canadian Engineering
schools in February and July (and November 2021 forthcoming). At each workshop,
qualitative and quantitative survey data is collected from the participants related to
engagement in the learning experience, development of leadership skills, and the
relationship to CEGC. The methodology used and resources required to ensure that students
create relevant, aligned workshop material is also documented.
ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
The first workshop (February 2021) was delivered to engineering students at two institutions.
The second workshop (July 2021) was delivered to engineering students from 4-6
institutions. Preliminary results show high engagement during the workshop, increased
awareness of personal leadership development, and strong awareness of the CEGC and
their relevance to engineering leadership. The participant survey results from the first two
workshops will be analysed. The third workshop (November 2021) will involve engineering
students from institutions across Canada.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY
Preliminary results indicate that student-led development and delivery of co-curricular
workshops are efficient and effective for student learning. Student participants were highly
engaged in leadership development and readily connected the concepts to engineering
grand challenges and technological stewardship. This shows promise as a methodology for
providing access to learning opportunities that are flexible, scalable, and broadly accessible.
A next step recommendation is to explore the integration of this methodology into existing
curriculum, creating opportunities to enable student engagement in their own learning.
KEYWORDS
Engineering Leadership, Experiential Learning, Lifelong Learning

Proceedings of REES AAEE 2021 The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, Copyright © Nadine Ibrahim, John
Donald, and Christine Moresoli, 2021
Background
Strong leadership skills and an understanding of the engineering role in both technological
innovation and stewardship are required to address global problems such as the grand
challenges. The “grand challenge” concept started as the unsolved problems in mathematics
in the early 1900s, and today is an approach used to focus and inspire professions to reflect
on and approach problems of deep societal importance. Incorporating leadership skills
development and connecting leadership to a broad awareness of socio-technical
responsibilities can be complex in what is a very full engineering curriculum. Supported by
the Engineering Deans of Canada (NCDEAS, 2019), the Canadian Engineering Grand
Challenges (CEGC) are global but have a uniquely Canadian context. The CEGC provide an
opportunity to use the grand challenges as a framework and to develop the student mindset
by developing expertise and leadership to bear new ideas and reimagine solutions. This
study describes the creation of co-curricular student-developed and led online workshops as
a mechanism to provide engaging and broadly accessible experiential learning activities to
address this learning opportunity.
Needs and Objective
The engineering education culture is experiencing a shift in context for engineers, with a
growing need for leadership and management skills to complement technical knowledge.
Leadership skills development needs to be part of the educational content and the engineer’s
mindset (Jamieson and Donald, 2020). Engineers have a desire to develop sustainable
solutions to large complex problems, and in sustainability, and would benefit by having
targeted training to address socially-motivated problems that inherently require an
understanding of multiple perspectives and disciplines (NCDEAS, 2019). The cultural
approach to engineering education is shifting to incorporate socio-technical requirements into
curriculum (Martin and Polmear, 2021). Currently, important skills such as leadership, ethics,
and reflective practice required for lifelong learning are under-represented in the curriculum
given this new cultural context. Incorporating these skills is complicated by an already-
packed curriculum. The objective of this paper is to present an innovative process of
engaging students in the CEGC to help educate future technology leaders and stewards to
critically reflect on the important role they play in transforming our world. Co-curricular
student workshops have been growing as a means to address this leadership learning
opportunity (e.g., “Troost ILead” n.d.; “Schulich Engineering Leadership Program” n.d.),
however the concept of student-developed and led workshops is rare or missing. Specifically,
the authors explore this opportunity and learning potential.
Through this work, we look to demonstrate that student-developed and student-led online
workshops can effectively and efficiently provide experiential learning opportunities that can
build knowledge, skills and attitudes related to leadership development and technological
stewardship. Ultimately the goal is to demonstrate an effective and efficient methodology for
student engaged learning that can be incorporated in the engineering curriculum. This is
important for three main reasons:
 Student engagement in creating their own learning experiences, that is autonomy-
supportive pedagogies (Goldberg and Somerville, 2014, 159–62), can be
transformative and support life-long learning.
 Mechanisms to address challenging curricula and introduce socio-technical concepts
are often missing.
 Success may influence the inclusion of curricular activities in existing programming,
from an engineering mindset/content (i.e., socio-technical and CEGC) and
methodology (i.e., students teaching students) perspectives.

Proceedings of REES AAEE 2021 The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, Copyright © Nadine Ibrahim, John
Donald, and Christine Moresoli, 2021
Student Learning – Experiential and Online
Students see a need for experiential learning opportunities and leadership skills
development. At its core, experiential learning follows Kolb’s learning cycle comprising:
experience – reflection – conceptualization – experimentation (Kolb, 1984). The need and
opportunity for students to be engaged in the development of their own learning (Goldberg
and Somerville, 2014) inspired our approach towards “for students, by students” in which
students developed and led workshops for other students. Learning activities and materials,
adapted to an online environment, were designed to draw on abilities from each stage of the
process, in sequence, for knowledge construction. This “hands-on learning” for leadership
development in virtual environments, which simultaneously helped build digital competency,
is a new area to explore. Experiential learning outcomes related to student engagement in
their own learning, and student motivation by exposure to the CEGC framework inspire their
respective professions and influence their learning.
Leadership Mindset
A review of engineering leadership education suggests six key competencies emerging:
communication, innovation, creativity, execution, personal drive, and teamwork (Paul, 2015);
while the National Academy of Engineering (2004) emphasized leadership in the “Engineer
of 2020”, and the “Whole New Engineer” emphasizes leadership and the creative imperative
(Goldberg and Somerville, 2014). To inspire curricular change initiatives to address these
leadership competencies in the context of sustainability, two special interest groups (SIGs)
have emerged in the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA-ACEG). The
“Engineer of 2050” and the “Sustainable Engineering Leadership and Management” SIGs
facilitate discussion on the identity and attributes of the engineers of the future, who will both
shape and respond to future global trends. Focusing on engineering leadership at the
intersection of the human and technical requirements brings effective and sustainable
operation of these complex systems in our world. Leveraging the CEGC as an application
framework will greatly test students as there are no obvious solutions and will require
abstract thinking, creativity, and systems thinking to build new competencies. The CEGC
framework can also help to emphasize the high relevance of these skills in parallel to the
traditional emphasis on technical skills.
Technological Stewardship
By definition, “Technological stewardship is behaviour that ensures technology is used to
make the world a better place for all — more equitable, inclusive, just, and sustainable. To
accomplish this, technological stewardship calls on those who create and influence
technology to step into a responsible leadership role” (Canadian Federation of Engineering
Students, 2018). At its core, this definition is also a call to action to students and
professionals in technology-related fields to demonstrate leadership at an individual and
societal level in addressing the technological needs of their community, all the while
continuing to coexist with nature, and increasingly relevant because technology continues to
evolve at an incredibly fast pace.
As the focal point of engineering shifts from the technical into the socio-technical realm it
drives the need for changes in engineering education to develop technology stewards by
advancing new competencies and developing leadership skills. Technology stewards are
people with experience of the workings of a community to understand its technology needs,
and experience with technology to take leadership in addressing them. Technological
Stewardship principles are (Engineering Change Lab 2019):
• Seek purpose
• Take responsibility
• Expand involvement
• Widen approaches
• Advance understanding
• Realize diversity
• Deliberate values
• Shared action

Grand Challenges
The made-in Canada version, Canadian Engineering Grand Challenges, reflect the unique
characteristics of Canada and the Canadian engineering education landscape. The CEGC
are rooted in the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which represent
the world’s call to action to address the challenges and opportunities facing the world and
humanity. For the community of engineering educators, considerations about how
engineering education might evolve to prepare our students for the many opportunities and
challenges that society will face in 2030, 2050 and beyond, are now pressing, and prompting
action. The coming decade is the “decade of action” to expedite efforts to meet the global
targets for the SDG. Engineers with strong technical skills sufficiently addressed the needs of
society in the past century, however, challenges of the 21st Century and particularly the
coming decade require both engineering expertise and leadership, in which for example,
sustainability in design requires an engineering mindset that incorporates leadership and a
view toward technological stewardship. Embedded in future-thinking to reimagine
engineering education, the scope of this study leverages the six CEGC (NCDEAS, 2019):
1. Resilient infrastructure,
2. Access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy,
3. Access to safe water in all communities
4. Inclusive, safe, and sustainable cities,
5. Inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and
6. Access to affordable and inclusive STEM education.
Methodology
The methodology used and resources required for the workshop development “by students,
for students” to develop leadership skills in the context of the engineering grand challenges is
presented in this section. Undergraduate engineering students created and led 90-minute
online workshops that combine leadership skills development (e.g., exploration of values,
developing vision, enabling others) and an introduction to the Canadian Engineering Grand
Challenges (CEGC) and technological stewardship principles. Workshops were delivered to
students at Canadian Engineering schools in February and July 2021, with a third workshop
in November 2021 forthcoming. At each workshop, qualitative and quantitative survey data is
collected from the participants related to engagement in the learning experience,
development of leadership skills, and the relationship to CEGC.
General learning outcomes include: 1) building awareness on the CEGC, 2) developing
leadership skills, and 3) leveraging online learning spaces for experiential learning
opportunities. Demonstration of these learning outcomes is used to assess development
stages of leadership skills and leadership identity, ability to interpret the importance and
relevance of CEGC, and engagement of experiential learning activities online. Assessment of
the learning outcomes will be analysed and reported in a future publication.
Phased Approach to Workshop Development and Delivery
The development team envisioned a series of workshops that could be applied in local and
national contexts, grow in institutional reach, and deepen in CEGC focus as experience was
gained in the workshop development and delivery process. This resulted in convening and
supporting the delivery of three online workshops in a phased approach, as follows:
 firstly, to students within the two participating institutions,
 secondly, to students recruited through the members of the Canadian Engineering
Education Association (CEEA), and

Proceedings of REES AAEE 2021 The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, Copyright © Nadine Ibrahim, John
Donald, and Christine Moresoli, 2021
 finally, to students in the wider Canadian engineering education community as a pan-
Canadian culminating “Leadathon” event.
Workshop Development
A key element for our success in this process was to hire undergraduate students to lead the
process as the core student team to develop and deliver the workshops. In this case, the
student team consisted of 3-5 co-op (co-op consists of multiple academic terms and multiple
work terms) students over the course of two semesters (Jan-April 2021 & May-Aug 2021)
who worked on the workshop development as part of their duties. The total work was the
equivalent of approximately 1.5 FTE (0.5 at Waterloo, 1.0 at Guelph).
To complete the workshops, the core student team had or developed the following
prerequisite knowledge:
 Constructive alignment with Bloom’s taxonomy
 Engagement in the CEGC, sustainability concepts, technical stewardship principles
 Experience in delivering workshops
The workshop development steps and cycle followed for each of the three workshops are
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Workshop Development Cycle
Content Development
The student-led content development included iterative steps, summarized as follows:
1. Brainstorm/Reading Literature: To familiarize with literature and resources.
2. Professor Mentorship: To guide and support students along their learning journey.
3. Refine Content and Select Focus: To narrow the scope to accommodate durations.
4. Lecture and Activity Creation: To build workshop material and hands-on activities.
5. Rehearsal and Revisions: To gather feedback and improve the learning experience.
The base content included four main topics, and a discussion on values as a starting point in
each workshop. The topics include: Technological Stewardship, UN Sustainable
Development Goals, Triple Bottom Line, and Canadian Engineering Grand Challenges.
Facilitator Selection/Training
The core four-student team, with support from faculty members, underwent a process to
recruit student facilitators through an application process where applicants articulated their
motivation and interest in engineering leadership and their attitude to support serving as
facilitators at the workshop. Selected facilitators were invited to a “train-the-trainer” session
delivered by the core team on content, online tools and facilitation techniques. Facilitators
were also given an orientation to the workshop content, including a practice run; and training
in the online tools for workshop delivery, such as the use of breakout rooms and shared
documents such as Google Sheets; and practised facilitation tips to engage participants,

Proceedings of REES AAEE 2021 The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, Copyright © Nadine Ibrahim, John
Donald, and Christine Moresoli, 2021
interact with others, and drive discussions. The outcome of this stage is to define the roles of
the facilitators and the timing of workshop activities, in addition to identifying the resources
required for running workshops (eg. determine facilitator to participant ratios).
Event Promotion and Participant Recruitment
Workshops were promoted by the core student team through an outreach effort on social
media (e.g., LinkedIn, Instagram), student societies, and faculty networks at the partner
institutions, such as the CEEA-ACEG membership. Working with the CEEA-ACEG network
was effective in reaching a wider student participation from universities across Canada. To
facilitate the registration process for participants from multiple institutions, the core student
team also developed the expertise to use online registration tools such as eventbrite.
Workshop Delivery
The 90-minute workshop delivery follows a structured format that starts with a discussion of
values and the motivation of engineering as a leadership profession. Following this, there is
an introduction to the main content theme, followed by a series of content and breakout room
activities, and closing with a summary and a key takeaway session. The workshop was
intentionally structured to provide a mix of new material and large group reflection in the main
room content, small group interaction and in-depth discussion in the breakout room activities.
The general model for the workshop structure is:
1. Introduction (10 minutes)
2. Breakout Room Introductions (5 min)
3. Main Room Content (20 min)
4. Breakout Room Activity #1 (10 min)
5. Main Room Content (20 min)
6. Breakout Room Activity #2 (10 min)
7. Closing and Key Takeaways (15 min)
Workshop Assessment
Upon the conclusion of the workshop, a follow-up survey is sent to the participants (and
facilitators in the July workshop). Workshop assessment includes qualitative and quantitative
survey data collected from the participants and related to engagement in the learning
experience, development of leadership skills, and the relationship to CEGC. The survey
distributed to participants also includes general questions about institution, year of study,
engineering program, and gender. Participant survey questions are listed in Appendix A.
Observations/Results
The observations and results focus on the development and delivery process for the two
workshops delivered. The participant survey results from the workshops and feedback from
the faculty observers will be analysed upon the conclusion of the third workshop. The first
workshop was delivered in February 2021 to 114 engineering students at two institutions.
Preliminary results show high engagement during the workshop, increased awareness of
personal leadership development, and strong awareness of the CEGC and their relevance to
engineering leadership. The second workshop was delivered in July 2021 to 39 engineering
students from 9 different institutions. Canada has 45 institutions that deliver accredited
engineering programs (Engineers Canada, 2019). In addition, including the principal
investigators, faculty observers from six of institutions also attended the July workshop. The
third workshop will involve engineering students from institutions across Canada and take the
form of a “Leadathon” where engineering students will work to address selected CEGC.
Based on the first two workshops offered, there are some preliminary observations regarding
the workshops include student interest and perception, and faculty interest and motivation.

Proceedings of REES AAEE 2021 The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, Copyright © Nadine Ibrahim, John
Donald, and Christine Moresoli, 2021
The distribution of student participation was spread relatively evenly across all levels, from
year one through graduating years in engineering programs. Student perceptions of the
quality of both the workshop delivery, content and learning were quite high, providing a rating
of 4.3/5 for meaningfulness, and 4.2/5 for applicability. Two quotes from participants serve to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the workshop:
“What I learned from this workshop is that there are two sides to every story. To be an
effective leader you must take the time to understand both sides to see the entire picture… a
leader should seek to comprehend the benefits and consequences then compare the risk of
both sides before coming to a conclusion. – Participant from February workshop
“[The leadership skills developed include] thinking quick, creatively, critically, and profoundly
to map CEGCs; explaining and justifying my personal recommendations/thoughts in the
breakout sessions, while also listening to others.” – Participant from July workshop
Faculty observers at the second workshop indicated in follow-up conversations that they
were highly inspired to engage their students in broader societal challenges, and most
notably expressed an interest in collaborating to develop a similar leadership learning
approach at their own institutions.
Table 1: Summary of Workshops
Workshop 1
(Waterloo-Guelph)
Workshop 2
CEEA
Workshop 3
Pan Canadian
Leadathon (planned)
Timeline Februar
y
2021 Jul
y
2021 Novembe
r
2021
Core student team 4 4 4
Number of institutions 2 9 >10 (target)
No. of participants 114 39 >60 (target)
No. facilitators 18 16 >10 (target)
Duration 90 minutes 90 minutes 3.5-4hrs
Content Tech Stewardship
UN SDG
CEGC
Triple Bottom Line
CEGC
Tech Stewardship
CEGC
Tech Stewardship
Activities Debate on new
technology, CEGC
prioritization
Concept maps of
CEGC and Triple
Bottom Line, and
Tech Stewardship
Concept maps of
CEGC, SMART Goals,
Milestone plans,
adaptive leadership
No. of breakout rooms 9 7 TBD
Surve
y
response rate 90% 23% TBD
Analysis and Discussion
An analysis of the impacts on students, facilitators and faculty shows engagement in the
workshop development and delivery process on several levels. The core student team,
student participants, and student facilitators learning experience demonstrates a desire to go
beyond technical knowledge and connect the social context to engineering solutions. The
workshop development follows a pedagogical model that emphasizes learning outcomes and
utilizes teaching tools and approaches (e.g., concept maps, debates) to embed and
strengthen learning in group activities.
The quality and effectiveness of the process was evidenced by our ability to plan, develop
and deliver workshops in a compressed timeline, including the outreach for selecting and
training facilitators and recruiting participants. The outreach effort and engagement of
participants from other institutions was facilitated by faculty across the country and helped
promote nationally and was complemented by the core team of students who recruited
through their own national networks of student societies. The facilitation carried out by
students was a critical success factor in providing greater comfort and engagement of

Proceedings of REES AAEE 2021 The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, Copyright © Nadine Ibrahim, John
Donald, and Christine Moresoli, 2021
participants in breakout sessions and in large group reflections, in addition to peer
mentorship experience during the “train-the-trainer” sessions. A continuous improvement
process is made possible due to the iterative nature of workshop development and the
phased approach to workshop delivery across Canada, also recognizing the meaningful
observations from faculty observers. Another critical success factor was the enabling
environment in which the core-student team operate within that leverages their experience
with the Guelph Engineering Leadership (GEL) program and the UWaterloo’s Student
Leadership Program.
There is a difference in attendance between the first and second workshops, that may be
attributed to the February workshop being held as part of a leadership certificate during the
academic year, whereas the July workshop was a one-off independent workshop during the
traditional summer break period across most of the participating institutions. In both cases,
the unique aspect about this learning model is the self-enrolment which rests on student’s
own motivation, unlike curricular courses which are mandatory for credits. The participation
was generally above our target numbers, with a diverse (across undergraduate years,
engineering discipline, and gender) participation across Canada from “coast to coast” as a
benefit of the online delivery.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Preliminary results indicate that student-led development and delivery of co-curricular
workshops are efficient and effective for student learning. Students were highly engaged in
leadership development concepts and readily connected the concepts to engineering grand
challenges and technological stewardship. This methodology is promising for providing
access to relevant intentional learning opportunities that are flexible, scalable, engaging and
broadly accessible. A next step is to explore the integration of this methodology into the
traditional curriculum, creating opportunities to enable student engagement in their own
learning. The team is exploring the development of online modules, and experiential learning
case studies, in addition to toolkits and facilitator guides to encourage wider application of
the leadership skills related to the CEGC and technological stewardship principles, and
adoptions by institutions delivering online learning inclusive of various Learning Management
Systems. Recognizing the high impact of experiential learning, a more ambitious
recommendation calls for finding creative ways to include skills such as leadership, ethics
and reflective practice required for lifelong learning into existing engineering curricula and
connect to graduate attributes (e.g., regulated by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation
Board) to address the needs for incorporating these currently under-represented, 21st
Century skills in an already-packed curriculum.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a D2L Innovation Guild 2020 Research Grant. This study has
been reviewed and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo Research
Ethics Board (REB# 43211). We also would like to thank the student teams of Sania Azim,
Tiana Bressan, Meryl Britto, Catherine Dang, and Grace Ly (University of Guelph) and
Andrea Lui, Monika Mikhail and Emily Zhu (University of Waterloo) for their contributions as
developers and facilitators of the student-led workshops.
References
Canadian Federation of Engineering Students. 2018. “Engineering Change Lab 11 and 12.” 2018.
Retrieved August 2, 2021.https://cfes.ca/blog/2018/11/engineering-change-lab-11-and-12/.
Engineering Change Lab. 2019. “Technological Stewardship Principles for the Engineering
Community.” Retrieved August 2, 2021. https://www.engineeringchangelab.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/Draft-Technological-stewardship-principles.pdf.

Proceedings of REES AAEE 2021 The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, Copyright © Nadine Ibrahim, John
Donald, and Christine Moresoli, 2021
Engineers Canada. 2019. “Canadian Engineers for Tomorrow - Trends in Engineering Enrolment and
Degrees Awarded 2015-2019.”
Goldberg, D.E., and M. Somerville. 2014. A Whole New Engineer: The Coming Revolution in
Engineering Education. Threejoy Associates, Incorporated.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=VK_toQEACAAJ.
Jamieson, Marnie, and John Donald. 2020. “Building the Engineering Mindset: Developing Leadership
and Management Competencies in the Engineering Curriculum.” Proceedings of the Canadian
Engineering Education Association (CEEA), June. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi0.14129.
Kolb, D. A., 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ.
Martin, Diana Adela, and Madeline Polmear. 2021. “The Two Cultures of Engineering Education:
Looking Back and Moving Forward.” In Engineering and Philosophy: Has Their Conversation Come
of Age?, preprint, (Eds.) Hyldgaard Christensen, S., Buch, A., Conlon, E., Didier, C., Mitcham, C. &
Murphy, M. Springer Nature, Vol. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology.:16.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE), 2004. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New
Century. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Sciences (NCDEAS), Canadian Engineering
Grand Challenges (2020-2030): Inspiring Action to Improve Life for Canadians and the World,
Sherbrooke, QC, Nov. 2019.
Paul, R.M., 2015. Engineering Leadership Education: A Review of Best Practices, American Society of
Engineering Education
“Schulich Engineering Leadership Program.” n.d. Schulich School of Engineering. Retrieved August 2,
2021. https://schulich.ucalgary.ca/current-students/undergraduate/launching-your-
career/engineering-leadership-program.
“Troost ILead.” n.d. Troost Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering. Retrieved August 2,
2021. https://ilead.engineering.utoronto.ca/student-programs/.
Appendix A
Workshop Assessment survey questions and response formats:
Question Response Format
On a scale of 1-5, how relevant was this workshop to your
leadership development?
Linear scale; 1= Very
Irrelevant, 5 = Ver
y
Relevant
How important are these topics in your leadership development
(
Triple Bottom Line, CEGC, Technolo
g
ical Stewardship
)
?
Linear scale; 1= Not Very
Important, 5 = Ver
y
Important
List 3 leadership skills or ways that you developed your leadership
throu
g
h this workshop.
Long answer
Which of Canadian Engineering Grand Challenges do you think
should be addressed first?
(
List of 6 CEGC
)
Multiple choice selection
Describe wh
y
y
ou think this challen
g
e should be addressed first. Lon
g
answe
r
I found this online workshop engaging. Linear scale; 1 = Strongly
Disa
g
ree, 5 = Stron
g
l
y
A
g
ree
I would be interested in attending another workshop or working
throu
g
h an experiential learnin
g
module on similar topics.
Linear scale; 1 = Strongly
Disa
g
ree, 5 = Stron
g
l
y
A
g
ree
What did
y
ou like best about this workshop? Lon
g
answe
r
What su
gg
estions to
y
ou have for improvin
g
the workshop? Lon
g
answe
r
Do
y
ou have an
y
other comments or feedback? Lon
g
answe
r
Copyright statement
Copyright © 2021 Nadine Ibrahim, John Donald, and Christine Moresoli: The authors assign to the Research in Engineering
Education Network (REEN) and the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) and educational non-profit
institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article
is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to REEN and AAEE to
publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors), on Memory Sticks, and in printed form within the
REEN AAEE 2021 proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.