Engineering education is expected to do more than explain how systems work. Students also need opportunities to apply ideas using the tools, software and equipment they could encounter when entering a workshop, construction site or technical workplace. Without that practical experience, a qualification can be relevant on paper while leaving graduates unsure about tasks employers expect them to perform.
A new study at one public technical and vocational education and training (TVET) college in South Africa’s Eastern Cape exposes that tension. Of 31 participating engineering students and graduates, 25 (80.6%) reported no exposure to engineering-related technology or software during their training. Yet 24 of the same 31 people (77.4%) believed the skills they gained were relevant to their career paths.
Published on 23 October 2026 in Frontiers in Education, the research examined 57 participants representing students, graduates, lecturers and host employers. It also considered institutional records of student progress and lecturers’ qualifications.
The contrast does not prove that South African TVET colleges generally fail to provide practical training. This is a small investigation of one institution. Its relevance lies in a more precise problem: the knowledge taught in an engineering curriculum may be valued even when the technology required to apply that knowledge is not readily experienced by learners.
A qualification is not the same as workplace readiness
South Africa’s TVET colleges provide routes into technical occupations, trades and vocational qualifications for students whose circumstances and goals vary widely. Their purpose is not limited to helping people pass examinations. Many courses aim to create a bridge between structured education and opportunities in industry.
Engineering programmes can include electrical, mechanical, civil and water-related disciplines. Alongside theoretical knowledge, trainees may be expected to interpret technical drawings, use measurement instruments, operate machines safely and become familiar with specialist applications used in design, construction or manufacturing.
Technology exposure therefore has a specific meaning in this discussion. A learner may understand engineering principles but lack access to the computer-aided design software, modern workshop equipment or other tools that employers use. Conversely, a student can use software frequently without acquiring strong engineering judgment. Both theory and practical application matter.
Researcher Zolile Mqotyana set out to examine how institutional capacity and curriculum responsiveness shaped the experiences of engineering learners at a selected Eastern Cape TVET college. The paper also considered how those experiences related to movement into the workforce.
The design was convergent mixed methods, bringing quantitative questionnaire responses together with qualitative comments and institutional data. This allowed the researcher to consider both the numerical pattern of responses and the explanations participants gave for their assessments.
How the 57 participants were selected
The study involved 26 current engineering students, five graduates, 20 engineering lecturers and six host employers. Participants were recruited through the institution’s networks and took part voluntarily between September 2025 and February 2026.
The researcher used convenience sampling rather than selecting a representative random sample. There were 125 eligible current students, 87 graduates, 38 engineering lecturers and 39 possible host employers in the groups described by the study.
Participation rates differed considerably. Twenty of 38 lecturers responded, compared with only five of 87 graduates and six of 39 employers. As a result, the research incorporates a wider share of the college’s lecturers than its graduates or industry contacts.
Three tailored questionnaires captured views on curriculum alignment, lecturer effectiveness, facilities, technology exposure and employment. Closed questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics using SPSS, while open-ended comments were examined through an inductive thematic process.
The college’s institutional records added information about certification and lecturer qualifications. The researcher did not, however, independently measure each participant’s proficiency in a particular engineering application or observe every workshop activity.
These methodological details are important because they limit what can be claimed. The sample is useful for identifying concerns within one institution, not for estimating the national percentage of engineering students who lack modern technological training.
Relevant training, but limited reported technology exposure
Among the 31 students and graduates, 24 (77.4%) said the skills they had obtained were relevant to the careers they intended to pursue. Only seven said otherwise. This suggests that participants often valued the content of their engineering education.
The answers were very different when they were asked whether they had been exposed to engineering-related technology or software during their studies. Just six (19.4%) responded positively. The other 25 (80.6%) reported no such exposure.
This is the study’s most striking contrast. Most people in the student-and-graduate group saw career relevance in their training, but relatively few reported experiencing the technological tools associated with that work.
The results concern participants’ accounts, not an independent equipment inventory. They do not demonstrate that the college had no machinery or that those 25 respondents undertook no hands-on learning at all. The question asked about exposure to technology or engineering software, a narrower point than complete absence of practical experience.
Students and graduates also gave lecturers an average rating of 3.84 out of five. Concerns about technology exposure therefore coexisted with generally favorable assessments of teaching. A qualification can be considered useful and its lecturers competent while still leaving room for improvements in practical facilities and resources.
The paper also describes employer and lecturer comments about the use of engineering design applications, modern surveying tools and workplace-oriented activities. These accounts provide possible explanations for the numerical pattern but do not establish the prevalence of particular equipment shortages across the whole sector.
What lecturers reported about facilities
The 20 lecturer respondents gave a similarly mixed picture of the programme. Fourteen (70%) believed the engineering curriculum aligned with industry expectations, and 16 (80%) said they had relevant industrial experience.
By contrast, only six lecturers (30%) considered the infrastructure adequate for industry demands. The same number believed the programme embraced technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Only five lecturers (25%) reported using engineering software and technologies, and nine (45%) indicated that they had received industry-related workshops. These responses suggest uneven opportunities to maintain and apply practical expertise alongside classroom instruction.
Lecturers were also divided when rating the college’s infrastructure directly. Seven called it good and one excellent, but six rated it fair and six selected poor or very poor. The average was 3.00 on a five-point scale.
That distribution matters more than a single average. It suggests that the facilities were not seen as uniformly inadequate, but neither were they consistently rated highly. Different courses, equipment needs and expectations may explain some of the variation.
The study also examined institutional certification records. Selected N3 engineering programmes showed certification rates of approximately 23.6% and 24.3% in two trimesters of 2022. N6 programmes had corresponding rates of 37.1% and 51.9% in two trimesters of 2025.
Those figures describe different qualification levels and years. They cannot establish that student outcomes improved by a specific amount or that technology access caused differences in certification. They instead add context about variation within the institution’s academic progression.
The employers’ assessment was encouraging and cautious
The study asked six host employers how well the college’s training related to workplace requirements. Four considered the competencies of graduates aligned with industry expectations; two saw a gap.
On a five-point scale, these employers gave curriculum-industry alignment a relatively positive average rating of 4.17. However, they were evenly divided over whether students received exposure to engineering-related technology: three answered yes and three no.
Employer comments described concerns about hands-on preparation and familiarity with applications used for drafting and engineering design. Some responses called for stronger practical construction activities and greater attention to workplace techniques.
These perspectives help explain how different stakeholders can agree that curriculum topics are relevant while also questioning whether students gain sufficient experience with professional tools.
The small employer sample is a major qualification. Each respondent represents about 16.7 percentage points of that group. Their views should not be used to estimate how many employers across South Africa are satisfied with TVET engineering programmes.
Five of the six employers also reported student engagement after in-service training. That is a useful positive observation, but it does not independently establish a placement rate or the longer-term prospects of the college’s graduates.
Employment patterns added another challenge
The researcher also examined responses about work among the 31 students and graduates, a group that included people at different stages of their studies. This makes the employment figures more complicated than a conventional graduate-destination survey.
Seventeen respondents (54.8%) reported contract employment, whereas only two (6.5%) reported permanent positions. For twelve (38.7%), the employment-type measure was recorded as not applicable.
Ten participants reported work relevant to their training, ten reported work unrelated to it, and eleven were classified as not applicable. The analysis thus did not show that every sampled graduate held an engineering job or that employment difficulties arose primarily from the curriculum.
The study assessed the relationship between employment type and relevance to training. A Pearson chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association, but expected cell counts were too small to satisfy its usual assumptions.
The researcher used a Fisher–Freeman–Halton exact test with Monte Carlo estimation as a robustness check, reporting p < 0.001. Cramér’s V was 0.610 within the analyzed table.
Because the sample was small and included a sizeable not-applicable group, that statistical association should be treated cautiously. It does not show that low software exposure caused contract employment or that similar employment patterns characterize all South African TVET graduates.
What the data do suggest is that the journey from curriculum content to appropriate and stable work has several stages. Relevant subject knowledge is necessary, but employers may also demand practical experience, opportunities for placement and experience with particular tools.
What a better training response might look like
One response would be to improve access to engineering-related applications, machines and instruments. But the study does not imply that buying equipment alone will resolve the gap. Lecturers must have time and support to incorporate those tools into meaningful teaching activities.
Stronger engagement with industry could help identify the technologies most relevant to the jobs available in a college’s region. Work-integrated learning partnerships may allow learners to see processes that cannot realistically be replicated inside every classroom or workshop.
Colleges could also examine whether students actually use available software and machinery, how frequently they practice and whether practical assessments resemble tasks undertaken in real workplaces. This would provide more precise evidence than simply recording that equipment was purchased.
Relevant Research Today reporting on digital technology and teacher stress illustrates that technological change can create demands for educators as well as opportunities for learners. That separate study does not concern TVET engineering, but it reinforces the value of combining new tools with staff development.
Research on students learning to question AI rather than follow simple prompting tutorials offers another related principle. Access to technology does not guarantee that a student learns how to evaluate or use it effectively.
Career planning also deserves attention. Research Today coverage of STEM career intentions has highlighted how confidence and support relate to educational ambitions in a different setting. The practical question for TVET is how relevant skills and demonstrable experience can help learners make the transition into work.
Why the findings must not be generalized too far
The research was carried out at one Eastern Cape college, with 57 volunteers from four groups. Graduates and employers were particularly underrepresented relative to their eligible populations. Those who responded may have had experiences that differed from nonrespondents.
Many results were self-reported, and the questionnaires were not part of a nationally standardized assessment. The researcher did not conduct a formal questionnaire pilot, although expert review helped refine the questions.
The study was not an intervention experiment and did not randomly assign students to programmes with more or less technology. It cannot establish causal effects on employment, assessment performance or career success.
Institutional records strengthened the analysis but compared qualification levels and years that were not directly equivalent. Their results should not be used as proof of a specific improvement or decline in programme effectiveness.
The findings are therefore best viewed as a concrete case that raises questions for broader research. Larger studies across provinces, engineering disciplines and types of institution would help determine whether the observed mismatch between perceived relevance and practical technology exposure is widespread.
Longitudinal studies could track learners from the classroom into placements and employment, recording their actual access to machines and software along the way. That would clarify which improvements are linked to better outcomes and which difficulties arise from wider labour-market constraints.
The challenge is to connect knowledge with experience
The Eastern Cape findings should not obscure the value learners placed on their engineering education. A majority of the student-and-graduate respondents considered their skills relevant, and lecturers and employers recognized elements of curriculum alignment.
But these positive assessments sat alongside a clear concern: 25 of 31 students and graduates did not report exposure to engineering-related technology or software during training. The same programme could therefore be viewed as worthwhile and still leave an important part of workplace preparation unresolved.
For vocational education, the next challenge is not only to make syllabuses more relevant. It is to ensure learners can apply their knowledge with the tools of their intended occupations, receive appropriate guidance and demonstrate those capabilities to employers.
That requires investment, curriculum review and sustained collaboration between colleges and industry. It also requires stronger evidence about what works. The goal should be to make a qualification both academically meaningful and practically useful, rather than assuming one achievement automatically guarantees the other.
Looking for studies on this topic? Use the Research Today Research Paper Finder to search scholarly research by topic, question, author or keyword.
Source Information
Study title: Evaluating a public college’s engineering programme: institutional capacity, curriculum responsiveness and employability in the eastern cape, South Africa
Authors: Zolile Mqotyana
Journal: Frontiers in Education, Volume 11
Publication date: 23 October 2026
Study design: Convergent mixed-methods single-college institutional evaluation combining stakeholder questionnaires, descriptive statistics, qualitative thematic analysis and institutional records; employment relationships assessed with chi-square and exact Monte Carlo analysis
Sample or scope: 57 voluntary respondents at one Eastern Cape TVET college (26 engineering students, five graduates, 20 lecturers and six host employers), surveyed September 2025 to February 2026
Key finding: Of 31 engineering students and graduates, 25 (80.6%) reported no exposure to engineering-related technology or software while 24 (77.4%) considered their acquired skills relevant to their career paths
