Journal Browser
Search
View All
Global evolutionary trends of the discipline of engineering education and their empirical implications

Wei Zhang1, Shuai Wang2,*, Jiayi Sun3, Congying Wang3

1Institute of China's Science, Technology and Education Policy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang Province, China

2School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang Province, China

3College of Education, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang Province, China



Engineering Education Review 2024, 2(4); https://doi.org/10.54844/eer.2024.0820
Submitted27 Mar 2026
Revised27 Mar 2026
Accepted27 Mar 2026
Published27 Mar 2026
+
Cite This Article
Abstract

This study explores the gradual evolution and institutionalization of engineering education research (EER) as a discipline across different countries and regions through the perspective of historical institutionalism. By employing bibliometric and historical retrospective methodologies, the research provides a systematic analysis of the development and transformation of EER in the United States, Europe, and China, along with the dynamic progression of their engineering education disciplines. The findings reveal several key insights. First, the evolution of engineering education in the United States unfolds across five stages: educational standardization, the rise of scientism, re-engagement with engineering and reflective scholarship of teaching, the initiation of discipline construction, and the establishment of disciplinary norms. In Europe, this progression is marked by three phases: educational standardization, the development of the scholarship of teaching, and the exploration of discipline-building. Second, the alignment between China's higher engineering education and modern industrial development demonstrates a comprehensive and dynamic adaptation. The advancement of China's engineering education discipline has gone through four distinct phases: educational reform exploration, the standardization of academic community building, the formation of teaching scholarship organizations, and the initiation of discipline construction. Third, the characteristics of discipline development differ across regions. The United States's approach emphasizes practicality, professionalization, and disciplinization; in Europe, the focus lies on professionalization, networking, and practical integration; and China's model emphasizes professionalization, institutionalization, and disciplinization. Finally, the study identifies five key dimensions for guiding future reforms in the development of China's engineering education discipline, offering pathways to enhance its growth and impact.

Copyright: © by the authors. Licensee ISTS. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
TOP