National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Lifelong Learning and Today's Engineer
Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×

RESEARCH RESULTS

The following data and analysis are based on detailed surveys of approximately 3,000 engineers across the United States and on interviews of thought leaders in the field. The online survey was conducted in collaboration with the Statistics division of Applied Technology for Learning in the Arts and Sciences (ATLAS) at University of Illinois. The respondents represented different engineering fields, managerial levels, and ethnicities (Appendix E).

MOTIVATION FOR LIFELONG LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

Today’s engineers are eager for lifelong learning opportunities and for recognition from their peers and employers for their learning. No one should doubt that there is a large and motivated population of engineers waiting to take advantage of an improved lifelong learning infrastructure.

The survey probed the engineers’ motivations for lifelong learning.

The results (FIGURE 1) indicate that career growth is the major motivation for lifelong learning and that engineers are also interested in learning to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. Three additional findings are worth mentioning:

•   The reason for enrolling in lifelong learning programs (or why they are considered important) varies across the managerial hierarchy. Nonmanagerial engineers and mid-level managers consider career growth at their current workplace the key reason to pursue lifelong learning, top-level engineers consider it important for satisfying intellectual curiosity.

•   Engineers who considered their job secure ranked preparation for career growth beyond their current workplace as important as satisfying intellectual curiosity. Engineers who considered their job insecure, however, considered career growth beyond their current workplace more important than satisfying intellectual curiosity.

•   Although both male and female engineers considered career growth at their current workplace the most important factor for enrolling in a lifelong learning program, they differed in terms of career growth beyond their current workplace. Female engineers considered it as important as satisfying intellectual curiosity, whereas male engineers considered it more important.

Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×
images

FIGURE 1 Graph showing engineers’ motivation for lifelong learning based on 3,200 responses to the question: “In the future, how likely are you to enroll in a lifelong learning program for any of the following reasons?” (shown at the bottom of the figure). Respondents ranked each reason on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 = would definitely enroll and 1 = definitely would not enroll.

BARRIERS TO LIFELONG LEARNING FOR INDIVIDUALS

When we asked engineers to rate the most common personal barriers to their participation in lifelong learning, we got the results shown in FIGURE 2.

The responses indicate that lack of time and finances are the primary obstacles for individuals considering lifelong learning, but it should be noted that lack of an appropriate program is also an important obstacle.

images

FIGURE 2 Respondents (2,800) rated personal barriers to lifelong learning, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 = the biggest obstacle and 1 = not an obstacle at all.

Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×

One other finding is worth noting:

•   The order of importance was reversed for engineers from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (African-American, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native), who considered high cost the most important personal barrier and time the second most important.

We also studied the engineers’ willingness to devote time for lifelong learning.

images

FIGURE 3 Graph showing the responses of 2,900 engineers to the question, “How many hours per week of your own time are you willing to devote to lifelong learning?”

The results (FIGURE 3) show that over half of the engineers surveyed would be willing to devote 1 to 4 hours per week for lifelong learning, and slightly less than a third expressed willingness to allocate 5 to 8 hours. We also discovered the following:

•   Men expressed willingness to give somewhat more time (slightly more than 5 hours per week) to lifelong learning than women (just over 4 hours per week).

•   Engineers with less than 10 years of experience are willing to allocate 5½ hours per week, while those with more than 10 years wish to give somewhat less time (approx. 4¾ hours per week).

•   The willingness to devote time to lifelong learning is independent of the highest degree earned by the engineer.

Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×

•   Engineers from underrepresented racial groups are, on average, willing to give 2 hours to lifelong learning per week than are white engineers: 7 hours per week for underrepresented groups and 5 for whites.

BARRIERS TO EMPLOYER SUPPORT OF LIFELONG LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

We asked engineers about their perception of barriers that their employers face in regard to providing lifelong learning opportunities to their engineering employees.

images

FIGURE 4 Engineers’ perception of why their employers might not support their lifelong learning needs, based on approximately 2,300 responses to the question, “Why do you think your employer might not support employee lifelong learning?” LL = lifelong learning

The results (FIGURE 4) show that engineers perceive that the main reasons their employers do not support lifelong learning are lack of resources and loss of employee time at work. The potential loss of a better trained employee is not a significant barrier.

Responses to the question of funding responsibilities differed according to firm size. Engineers from smaller firms generally responded that individuals should take more responsibility than employers for financing lifelong learning, engineers from medium-sized firms thought that employees and employers should be equally responsible, and engineers from large firms, that employers should take more responsibility than individuals.

Indeed, small to medium enterprises (SMEs)—i.e., those with 500 or fewer employees—face particular difficulties when it comes to providing lifelong learning opportunities for their engineering employees. They tend not to have significant resources and to focus on short-term needs because of their vulnerability in the marketplace. Yet SMEs represent 98 percent of the businesses in the

Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×

United States, employing half of all private-sector employees13 and 41 percent of the nation’s high-tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer technicians). They have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade and produced 14 times more patents per employee than large patent-producing firms.14 Thus, any infrastructure development for lifelong learning for engineers should be made with SMEs and their employees in mind.

DRIVERS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONTENT FOR LIFELONG LEARNING

We asked employees what should drive the content for lifelong learning. The results (FIGURE 5) indicate that scientific and technological advances must drive the content of lifelong learning programs. This is particularly important in the context of the rapid development and depreciation of knowledge. We also note that engineers believe that changing global business practices must drive content —in other words, some lifelong learning programs in the United States must be directed at learning business practices in other countries.

images

FIGURE 5 Engineers’ views of what should drive the content of lifelong learning programs, based on 2,900 responses to the question: “How important should each of the following considerations be in driving the content of lifelong learning?” Respondents ranked each from 5 = extremely important to 1 = not important at all.

__________________

13 Katherine Kobe. 2007. The Small Business Share of GDP, 1998-2004. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, April. Available online at www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs299tot.pdf.

14 CHI Research. 2003. Small Serial Innovators: The Small Firm Contribution to Technical Change. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, February. Available online at www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs225.pdf.

Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×

THE ROLE OF VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS

We asked engineers how much of a role they think the government, industry, universities, and professional societies should play in the development of a national lifelong learning infrastructure.

images

FIGURE 6 Engineers’ beliefs about the role of different stakeholders in lifelong learning, based on 3,000 responses.

The results (FIGURE 6) show that 4 out of 5 engineers expect businesses (industries) to play an important or leading role in developing the national lifelong learning infrastructure, from which one could conclude that they believe employers have or should have a responsibility to ensure continuous education for their engineers. An overwhelming majority (3 out of 4) felt that universities and professional societies also have a significant role to play.

One other finding is worth noting:

•   Engineers who considered their job insecure believed that the government should play an important role, whereas engineers who were very secure in their job did not.

Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Research Results." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13503.
×
Page 11
Next: Conclusions »
Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering: Sustaining American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Get This Book
×
Buy Ebook | $9.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Lifelong Learning Imperative (LLI) project was initiated to assess current practices in lifelong learning for engineering professionals, reexamine the underlying assumptions behind those practices, and outline strategies for addressing unmet needs. The LLI project brought together leaders of U.S. industry, academia, government, and professional societies to assess the current state of lifelong learning of engineers; to examine the need for, and nature of, lifelong learning going forward; and to explore the responsibilities and potential actions for the primary stakeholders.

The United States is facing a crisis in its engineering workforce just as global competition is becoming very intense. During the next several years there will be massive retirements of skilled and experiences engineers, and the United States has one of the lowest rates of graduation of bachelor-level engineers in the world: only 4.5 percent of our university graduates are engineers. The issue is especially acute in the national security industry because of citizenship requirements. Perhaps even more critical, the pace of technological change continues to accelerate, making the specifics of engineering education and skill development obsolete in short order. A critical part of our corporate and national strategy to address this looming crisis should be to ramp up the quality of engineers' professional life, improve their capacity to innovate, and widen their fields of opportunity.

A project-framing workshop was organized by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in partnership with the National Academy of Engineering in June 2009 to examine the issues relevant to lifelong learning in engineering. A UIUC research team then conducted a survey-based assessment of the issues identified in the 2009 workshop. Preliminary findings from the UIUC study were examined more fully. Lifelong Learning Imperative in Engineering reflects the opinions of the authors based on the UIUS team's survey analysis and learning from the discussions at the 2011 workshop.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!