 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
| Copyright © 2012. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
ENGINEERING
E^' I~GT'^N
| DQSI9n jn9 On HdOPtIVQ System
Board on Engineering Education
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1995
OCR for page R2
The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the governing board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special
competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should
not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the
U.S. Government.
This study by the Board on Engineering Education was conducted under National
Academy of Sciences/National Research Council's Cooperative Agreement (No. OSR-
9344774) with the National Science Foundation. Additional contributors were the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, National Academy of
Engineering, The Boeing Company, and Xerox Corporation.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 95-69924
International Standard Book Number 0-309-05278-5
Copies of the report are available in limited supply from:
Board on Engineering Education
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20418
202-334-3505
beed@nas.edu
Copies are available for sale from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Box 285
Washington, D.C. 20055
800-624-6242
202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area)
Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
BOffl~ ON ENGINEERING EDUC~10N
KARL S. PISTER, Chai'^, Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz
PETER CANNON, Vice Chair, Managing Partner, V.R.E., Ventura,
California
BETSY ANCKER-JOHNSON, Vice President General Motors Corporation
(retired), Chair, World Environment Center, Naples, Florida
WILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR., Vice President, Science and Engineering,
Lockheed Martin Corp.
ELEANOR BAUM, Dean of Engineering, The Cooper Union, New York,
New York
DAVID P. BILLINGTON, Professor of Civil Engineering and Operations
Research, Princeton University, New Jersey
ERNEST L. BOYER, President, Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of
Teaching, Princeton, New Jersey (until June 30, 1993)
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn,
New York
ROBERT P. CLAGETT, Dean (retired), College of Business
Administration, University of Rhode Island, Kingston
JOHN P. CRECINE, President, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
(until June SO, 1993)
EUGENE M. DELOATCH, Dean, School of Engineering, Morgan State
University, Baltimore, Maryland
AVERY H. DEMOND, Assistant Professor, Environmental and Water
Resources Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
DENICE D. DENTON, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison
SAMUEL C. FLORMAN, Vice President, Kreisler Borg Florman
Construction Company, Scarsdale, New York
DAVID L. FREYBERG, Associate Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Stanford University, California
MARIO J. GONZALEZ, Associate Vice Chancellor for South Texas and
Border Area Development, Temple Foundation Endowed Professor,
The University of Texas System, Austin
WESLEY L. HARRIS, Associate Administrator for Aeronautics, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. (until June
30, 1993)
JAMES S. LANCER, Director, Institute for Theoretical Physics,
University of California, Santa Barbara
PETER Y. LEE, Dean, School of Engineering, California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo
ROBERT W. LUCKY, Vice President of Applied Research, Bellcore, Red
Bank, New Jersey
MARK B. MYERS, Vice President-Research, Xerox Corporation,
Stamford, Connecticut
WILLIAM B. STREETT, Dean of Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York (until June 30, 1993)
CHARLES M. VEST, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge
SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Associate Provost and Abby Rockefeller Mauze
Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge (until June 30, 1993)
. . .
OCR for page R4
DOROTHY S. ZINBERG, Lecturer, Public Policy Center for Science and
International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Uolson Members to the Boord on Engineerlog Educotlon
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems:
NAOMI F. COLLINS, Executive Vice President, NAFSA: Association of
International Educators, Washington D.C. (from July 1, 1994)
JAMES J. SOLBERG, Professor of Industrial Engineering, Purdue
University (until June 30, 1994)
PAUL E. TORGERSEN, President, Corporate Research Center, College
of Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(until June 30, 1994)
GEORGE L. TURIN, Vice President, Teknekron Corporation, Menlo
Park, California (until June 30, 1994)
ROBERT V. WHITMAN, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (from July 1,
1994)
Stofl
MARY KAYE BENNETT, Staff Assistant (until February 1994)
DUNCAN BROWN, Consultant/Writer (until October 1993)
ALAN E. FECHTER, Executive Director, Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel (until October 1994)
COURTLAND S. LEWIS, Consultant/Writer (from July 1993)
KERSTIN B. POLLACK, Board Acting Director
1V
OCR for page R5
Foreword
Since the early (decades of this century, when engineering programs
became well established at many U.S. universities, engineering lead-
ers in academe and industry have conducted periodic evaluations of
the path that engineering education ought to take. The "Wickenden
report" of 1 930 (SPEE, 1 9301; the two "Hammond reports," Aims and
Scope of Engineering Curricula (SPEE, 1940) and Engineering
Education After the War (SPEE, 19441; the "Grinter report" of 1955
(ASEE, ~ 955), and the ~ 985 report of the National Research Council's
Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer (the
"Haddad report"; NRC, 1985) were all landmark studies of the past
that contributed a strong sense of "where we are now" and "where we
ought to go" in engineering education. Because they were authorita-
tive, their recommendations were often heeded when decision makers
in universities and government considered policy choices affecting
program directions, curricula, funding, and faculty advancement.
However, one might argue that, at least in some senses, none of
these reports was truly revolutionary. To a great extent, they described
and reinforced unchanging principles that are basic to engineering
education. It is startling to read them and recognize the consistency of
many of their themes across the decades:
· the need for strong grounding in the fundamentals of mathemat-
ics and the physical and engineering sciences;
· the importance of design and laboratory experimentation;
· a call for more attention to the development of communication
and social skills in engineers;
v
OCR for page R6
V1
FOREWORD
· the need for integration of social and economic studies ant]
liberal arts into the curriculum;
· the vital importance of good teaching and attention to curricu-
lum development; ant!
the neec! to prepare students for career-Ion" learning.
.
The various reports differ mainly in the relative weight accorded
these themes. However, they also reflect changes in the fundamental
political, economic, and social circumstances governing each period.
Thus, the Wickenden report reflected the rapid expansion of large,
technology-based inclustrial organizations; the Hammond reports
reflected! both the explosion of technologies ant] the exigencies of a
World War; the Grinter report was a reaction to the wartime demon-
stration that engineers required better grounding in mathematics ant!
the physical sciences; and the Ha(lda(1 study respon(ie(1 to sharply
declining engineering enrollments and sharply increasing industrial
competition from overseas.
The same holds true for the current effort of the National Research
Council's Board on Engineering Education (BEEd), reported here.
The central themes remain, but the emphases among them and the
specific terms with which they are approached are different. What
prompted this particular study? Partly it is that the environment for
engineering is different even from that of the mid-19SOs, in some
critical respects. Chief among the new factors are the end of the Cold
War and reduction in the defense budget; a persistent worldwide
economic challenge, with major restructuring of business and inclus-
try to meet global competition; the ubiquitous and rapidly evolving
applications of information technologies; a strong growth of minor-
ity and immigrant populations in the United States without concomi-
tant representation in engineering; the entry of large numbers of
women into the workforce, also without concomitant representation
in engineering; and a widening recognition of the responsibility of
engineers to consider the social and environmental impacts of their
work.
Government programs also drive change. The National Science
Foundation (NSF), which traditionally has focused on support of
research anti graduate Placation, has a mandate to support under-
gra(luate anti precollege education in science, engineering, anti
mathematics. In the NSF's Directorate for Engineering, several
engineering education coalitions are pursuing a fundamental restruc-
turing of parts of the undergraduate engineering curriculum. The
Engineering Research Centers consi(ler education a vital part of their
mission. Outreach programs sponsored through several NSF direc-
torates, particularly the Directorate for Education and Human Re
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
. .
V11
sources, offer engineering educational opportunities to women and
minorities, the disabled, students from small colleges and non-engi-
neering colleges, ant! high school students and teachers. The Clinton
Administration's National Science and Technology Council, through
its Committee on Education and Training, has developed a five-year
strategic plan for science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
education under which the efforts of all federal agencies will be
coordinated. (The NSF efforts are integral to the council's strategic
plan, as are similar programs at the Department of Energy, the
Department of Education, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.)
The opening paragraphs of this foreword suggested that many of the
problems in engineering education are perennial problems-"the
more things change, the more they stay the same." Given the changes
just described, a basic question is whether this is actually true today;
that is, will engineering practice remain more or less the same in the
future, or will it require radical rethinking of educational content and
process to reflect the nature of new knowledge and the changing
modes of its transmission, the globalization of technology, the chang-
ing nature of engineering jobs and career patterns, and the changing
nature of the university itself. The BEEd has come to the conclusion
that, in many areas, major change in the engineering education system
is incleed necessary if it is to meet the needs of the nation ant! the world
in the coming century. ~ agree with this assessment, and ~ urge your
attention to this report. Coming as T do from the industrial sector, T
also wish to issue a special call to the nation's industrial leaders to
recognize the responsibility they have to help reform and sustain
engineering education.
Norman R. Augustine, Chairman
National Academy of Engineering
OCR for page R8
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetu-
ating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineer-
ing research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to
their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted
to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it
to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr.
Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under
the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization
of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National
Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes
the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president
of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National
Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of
appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to
the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an
adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify
issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is
president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy
of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and
technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general
policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal
operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government,
the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is
administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr.
Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R9
?refoce
The Board on Engineering Education (BEEd) is charged with
identifying significant issues in engineering education; facilitating
communication about engineering education needs among academic,
inclustrial, and government leaders; developing long-term strategies
for engineering education in the context of rapidly changing circum-
stances, technologies, and demands; formulating timely policy rec-
ommendations; and stimulating actions to implement the strategies
and policy recommendations. To that end, in 1991 the BEEd em-
barked on an effort tog
· identify the critical challenges facing U.S. engineering education
today;
· present a vision of engineering education for the future;
· develop a plan for meeting the challenges; and
· stimulate a nationwide effort to implement the plan.
The boar(l's goal in this effort is to achieve an engineering education
system that reflects the needs and realities of the United States and the
worI(1 of the twenty-first century.
As a first step in that direction, following a series of meetings at
which the viewpoints of a wide range of organizations anti in(lividuals
interested in engineering education were heard, the BEEd prepare(1 a
working paper (NRC, 1993) that provicle(i a preliminary framework
for (liscussing policy, programmatic, anti budgetary alternatives. The
iSee Appendix A for complete task statement.
1X
OCR for page R10
x
PREFACE
BEEd presenter! the working paper in four regional symposia to
engineering faculty, administrators, policy makers in industry ant!
government, and representatives of both professional societies and
student groups.2 Through the symposia discussions on a regional and
national basis, involving many of the nation's 311 engineering
schools, its professional engineering societies, ant! state and federal
agencies, the board hoper! to develop a consensus document setting
forth plans for adciressing the pressing issues describer! in the
working paper. Following the four symposia, the board analyzed all
comments voicer! during the symposia as input to its further delibera-
tions, which culminates! in this report.
Thus, virtually all sectors of the nation's engineering education
community have participated in the development of this report and
the actions it recommends, which are aimed at a realization of the
BEEd's vision for an engineering education system appropriate to the
next century. The board has not attempted to prioritize the many
recommencled actions; such an exercise would be not only difficult
but also highly subjective. instead, what was considered to be a more
reasonable approach was taken by dividing the actions into two
categories: those relevant to all institutions and "other possible
actions for consideration." Also, four areas are singled out in Chapter
as high-priority actions.
~ would point out that there are two key themes in this report that
may distinguish it from other recent reports on engineering educa-
tion. First, there is a broad recognition of the external context,
national and increasingly worldwide, within which engineering
education is conducted and of the fact that the culture of engineering
education must adapt to that changing context. The second, related
theme is the Beecl's strong belief that engineering education institu-
lions must evaluate themselves in the context of a shared vision of the
future of the engineering education system, then determine which
elements of that vision can be framed as objectives that are consistent
with their particular institutional mission, and finally make the
necessary changes to achieve those objectives. Thus, if there is a
simple catch-phrase to describe our call to action, it is this: "think
globally, act locally!"
On behalf of the BEEd, ~ would like to express my appreciation to
the many individuals who contributed to this extensive study and who
participated in the preparation of this report. Literally hundreds of
2The symposia and their participants are listed in Appendix B. Other contributors
to the study, including presenters at smaller, topic-focused colloquia held by the
BEEd, are listed in Appendix C.
OCR for page R11
PREFACE
-
people demonstrated their interest in the future of engineering educa-
tion through active participation in meetings, symposia, and colloquia
convened by the BEEd. (They are all listed in appendices B and C.)
From the beginning of its deliberations, the BEEd has striven to ensure
that its report would reflect as wide a spectrum as possible of the views
of the engineering education community. Consequently, this is truly
a consensus document; the ideas and beliefs of those many partici-
pants inform the report throughout.
A special thanks is extended to Charles M. Vest, who chaired} the
BEEd's Report Development Committee. A critical review process
overseen by the National Research Council's Report Review Commit-
tee contributed to the refining of the report.
T would like in addition to acknowledge the valuable contributions
of the National Research Council's Archie L. Wood, Executive
Director of the Commission on Engineering and Technological Sys-
tems, and Alan E. Fechter, Executive Director of the Office of
Scientific and Engineering Personnel. Finally, the BEEd gratefully
acknowleclges the excellent support provided by its staff members:
Kerstin B. PolIack, our able Acting Director throughout the study;
staff assistant Mary Kaye Bennett; consultant Duncan Brown, who
(lrafte(1 a white paper to assist the board in its cleliberations; and
consultant CourtIand S. Lewis, whose work in synthesizing the
material clerived from the boarcl's deliberations was indispensable.
Without their assistance, this report would not have been completed
successfully.
Karl S. Pister, Chair
Board on Engineering Education
OCR for page R12
OCR for page R13
Contents
THE BOARD'S MESSAGE
2 ENGINEERING AT THE MILLENNIUM:
A NEW VISION
The Changing World of Engineering, 12
A Vision for the Twenty-First Century, 14
ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY
Some Important Strengths, 19
Areas Needing Improvement, 20
Undergraduate Curriculum, 21
Teaching Styles and Methods, 25
Diversity of Students and Faculty, 27
Faculty Reward System, 31
Flexibility and Adaptability, 32
A New Collegiality, 33
K-12 Preparation, 33
Technological Literacy, 36
Continuous Education of Engineers, 37
4 ACHIEVING CHANGE
Structural Aspects and Issues, 40
System Structure, 40
Implications for Change Strategies, 42
Strategy for Change, 43
x~
12
19
40
OCR for page R14
XIV
CONTENTS
5 A CALL TO ACTION
Actions for All Institutions, 45
Conduct Institutional Self-assessment, 45
Redress Imbalances in the Faculty Incentive System, 46
Improve Teaching Methods and Practices, 47
Ensure That the Curriculum Supports the
Institution's Strategic Plan, 48
Expand Beneficial Interactions and Outreach, 49
Other Possible Actions for Consideration, 50
Actions to be Undertaken by Institutions, 50
Actions to be Undertaken by Industry, 52
Actions to be Undertaken by Professional Societies, 53
Actions to be Undertaken by Government, 53
Actions to be Undertaken by Government-Industry
University Cooperatives, 53
Actions to be Undertaken by the Accrediting Authority, 54
Actions to be Undertaken by Other Groups of the
Engineering Community, 54
Epilogue, 55
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: BEEd TASK STATEMENT
APPENDIX B: LIST OF REGIONAL SYMPOSIA
AND PARTICIPANTS
APPENDIX C: CONTRIBUTORS TO THE STUDY
APPENDIX D: TOWARD A PROGRESSIVE NEW
ENGINEERING CURRICULUM
44
56
59
60
68
77
OCR for page R15
ENGINEERING
e-l I~GTl^N
| DQS19nIn9 On Hd~ptive System
OCR for page R16
