796 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
because topics related to critical minerals (e.g., lithium,
rare earth minerals) are not part of the typical mining engi-
neering curriculum. The shortage of qualified workforce
impedes the U.S. domestic production of critical minerals
which consequently delays the society transition to green
energy sector. To improve the current education situation,
the first step is to understand the industry needs, which is
the focus of this study.
This paper summarizes the results from a survey which
seeks to understand the industry perspectives on the U.S.
hard rock mining engineering education. The paper first
presents the survey purpose statement and research ques-
tions. The data collection, participants, survey question
development, and strategies for data analysis were described
next. After the presentation of the survey findings, the
paper finally concludes with the recommendations on how
to improve the future U.S. hard rock mining engineering
education.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The purpose of this study was to understand the industry
expectations on the future U.S hard rock mining engineer-
ing graduates. Specifically, the study aims to address the fol-
lowing four research questions: (1) What are the required
qualifications a mining engineering graduate should have
to be hired by the mining industry? (2) What are the areas
for improvement in the current mining engineering edu-
cation at higher education institutions? (3) What are the
recommendations proposed by industry for improving
mining engineering education? (4) Do different sectors
in the mining industry have different perspectives on the
required qualifications that a mining engineering graduate
should have?
METHOD
Data Collection
This study was determined as not required for human
research protection oversight by the Institutional Review
Board. The survey was distributed by the members of the
two advisory boards of authors’ university. The members
further distributed the survey within their professional net-
works. The members of the advisory boards and partici-
pants not only serve for the authors’ institution but other
U.S. universities offering mining programs. The survey
was designed with a focus on hard rock mining engineer-
ing related questions. The survey asked the participants to
provide their comments on the U.S. mining engineering
graduates without being specific to those graduated from
the authors’ institution. Therefore, the survey findings can
potentially represent the general situation of the other U.S.
universities’ education on hard rock mining. The survey
took approximately 10 minutes to complete.
To estimate the minimum sample size required for our
study, we conducted a priori power analysis in G*Power
3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007 Faul et al., 2009). We used alpha
=0.05, statistical power =0.8, and equal sample sizes for
the respondents’ affiliated companies. When the effect
size of d is 0.5, 0.8, 1, and 1.2, the minimum sample size
required for an independent sample t-test is 64, 26, 17, and
12, respectively (Cohen 2013).
Participants
A total of 31 individuals responded to the survey. Three
participants responded to two or fewer questions, and 28
participants responded to all the Likert-type questions.
Reponses provided by the 28 participants were used in the
study. Sixteen of the 28 participants further provided their
responses to the open-ended questions.
Among the 28 participants, there were 4 (14.3%) junior
mining engineers, 1 (3.6%) intermediate mining engineer,
9 (32.1%) senior mining engineers, 4 (14.3%) engineering
managers/supervisors, 6 (21.4%) executive/senior manag-
ers, 1 (3.6%) environment specialist, 2 (7.1%) geologists,
and 1 (3.6%) consulting engineer. When the 28 participants
were asked about the nature of their company, 15 (53.6%)
reported mining/metallurgical operation, 5 (17.9%) min-
ing/metallurgical equipment supplier, 5 (17.9%) mining/
metallurgical consulting, 2 (7.1%) engineering procure-
ment, construction, and management (EPCM), and 1
(3.6%) research and development (R &D).
Survey Development
The final survey consists of 22 Likert-type close-ended and
five open-ended questions which can be found in the full
length paper published in the Journal of Mining, Metallurgy
and Exploration (Chen et al., 2023). This conference paper
summarizes some of the high level key findings. The Likert-
type question target areas including knowledge, skills, and
qualifications of the current graduates, the application of
new technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence/virtual real-
ity) in teaching and training, mining workforce short-
age, and collaboration between academia and industry.
Seven response options are provided for each Likert-type
question, including 1 =strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3
=somewhat disagree, 4 =neither agree nor disagree, 5 =
somewhat agree, 6 =agree, and 7 =strongly agree. The five
open-ended questions asked participants to comment on:
because topics related to critical minerals (e.g., lithium,
rare earth minerals) are not part of the typical mining engi-
neering curriculum. The shortage of qualified workforce
impedes the U.S. domestic production of critical minerals
which consequently delays the society transition to green
energy sector. To improve the current education situation,
the first step is to understand the industry needs, which is
the focus of this study.
This paper summarizes the results from a survey which
seeks to understand the industry perspectives on the U.S.
hard rock mining engineering education. The paper first
presents the survey purpose statement and research ques-
tions. The data collection, participants, survey question
development, and strategies for data analysis were described
next. After the presentation of the survey findings, the
paper finally concludes with the recommendations on how
to improve the future U.S. hard rock mining engineering
education.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY AND
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The purpose of this study was to understand the industry
expectations on the future U.S hard rock mining engineer-
ing graduates. Specifically, the study aims to address the fol-
lowing four research questions: (1) What are the required
qualifications a mining engineering graduate should have
to be hired by the mining industry? (2) What are the areas
for improvement in the current mining engineering edu-
cation at higher education institutions? (3) What are the
recommendations proposed by industry for improving
mining engineering education? (4) Do different sectors
in the mining industry have different perspectives on the
required qualifications that a mining engineering graduate
should have?
METHOD
Data Collection
This study was determined as not required for human
research protection oversight by the Institutional Review
Board. The survey was distributed by the members of the
two advisory boards of authors’ university. The members
further distributed the survey within their professional net-
works. The members of the advisory boards and partici-
pants not only serve for the authors’ institution but other
U.S. universities offering mining programs. The survey
was designed with a focus on hard rock mining engineer-
ing related questions. The survey asked the participants to
provide their comments on the U.S. mining engineering
graduates without being specific to those graduated from
the authors’ institution. Therefore, the survey findings can
potentially represent the general situation of the other U.S.
universities’ education on hard rock mining. The survey
took approximately 10 minutes to complete.
To estimate the minimum sample size required for our
study, we conducted a priori power analysis in G*Power
3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007 Faul et al., 2009). We used alpha
=0.05, statistical power =0.8, and equal sample sizes for
the respondents’ affiliated companies. When the effect
size of d is 0.5, 0.8, 1, and 1.2, the minimum sample size
required for an independent sample t-test is 64, 26, 17, and
12, respectively (Cohen 2013).
Participants
A total of 31 individuals responded to the survey. Three
participants responded to two or fewer questions, and 28
participants responded to all the Likert-type questions.
Reponses provided by the 28 participants were used in the
study. Sixteen of the 28 participants further provided their
responses to the open-ended questions.
Among the 28 participants, there were 4 (14.3%) junior
mining engineers, 1 (3.6%) intermediate mining engineer,
9 (32.1%) senior mining engineers, 4 (14.3%) engineering
managers/supervisors, 6 (21.4%) executive/senior manag-
ers, 1 (3.6%) environment specialist, 2 (7.1%) geologists,
and 1 (3.6%) consulting engineer. When the 28 participants
were asked about the nature of their company, 15 (53.6%)
reported mining/metallurgical operation, 5 (17.9%) min-
ing/metallurgical equipment supplier, 5 (17.9%) mining/
metallurgical consulting, 2 (7.1%) engineering procure-
ment, construction, and management (EPCM), and 1
(3.6%) research and development (R &D).
Survey Development
The final survey consists of 22 Likert-type close-ended and
five open-ended questions which can be found in the full
length paper published in the Journal of Mining, Metallurgy
and Exploration (Chen et al., 2023). This conference paper
summarizes some of the high level key findings. The Likert-
type question target areas including knowledge, skills, and
qualifications of the current graduates, the application of
new technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence/virtual real-
ity) in teaching and training, mining workforce short-
age, and collaboration between academia and industry.
Seven response options are provided for each Likert-type
question, including 1 =strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3
=somewhat disagree, 4 =neither agree nor disagree, 5 =
somewhat agree, 6 =agree, and 7 =strongly agree. The five
open-ended questions asked participants to comment on: