Quantitative study models cognitive relationships in engineering education, suggesting curriculum improvements.
As engineering education increasingly emphasizes outcome-based learning aligned with global standards such as the Washington Accord, understanding how students progress from knowledge acquisition to higher-order cognitive and ethical competencies becomes essential. This study aims to model the interrelationship between knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom among engineering students within the framework of India’s National Board of Accreditation (NBA) Program Outcomes.A quantitative, cross-sectional study was conducted using a structured survey instrument developed and mapped to NBA graduate attributes. The instrument comprised likert-scale items assessing knowledge acquisition, problem-solving and analytical abilities representing intelligence, and scenario-based items capturing judgment, reflection, and application indicative of wisdom. Data were collected from 566 undergraduate engineering students. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation analysis were used to examine relationships among constructs, followed by regression analysis to test the proposed hierarchical model.The results indicate a strong positive correlation between knowledge and intelligence (r = 0.812), a strong correlation between intelligence and wisdom (r = 0.821), and a moderate correlation between knowledge and wisdom (r = 0.644), with all relationships statistically significant (p < 0.001). These findings empirically support the hypothesis that knowledge forms the foundation for intelligence, which, through application and reflection, evolves into wisdom.The proposed model provides practical insights for outcome-based curriculum design, assessment, and accreditation practices by highlighting the progressive cognitive pathway envisioned in NBA Program Outcomes. It also offers a measurable framework for evaluating higher-order learning beyond technical competence in engineering education
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jolly et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: