National Academies Press: OpenBook

Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System (1995)

Chapter: III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY

« Previous: II. ENGINEERING AT THE MILLENIUM: A NEW VISION
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"III. ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY." National Research Council. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4907.
×
Page 39

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Engineering Education Today SOME IMPORTANT STRENGTHS The success of U.S. engineering education has long been recog- nized worldwide. There are 311 engineering schools in the United States,1 which are open to academically qualified students from any country, class, race, or ethnic group. Top students from around the world vie to attend U.S. colleges and universities to study engineering. U.S. engineering education is solidly based on in-depth study of the natural sciences, engineering science, and mathematics, an approach recommended by the influential Grinter report in the 1950s (ASEE, 1955). Thus it is an education that is highly analytical and theoretical in nature, although in recent years increased attention has been given to instilling in undergraduates a better appreciation of design and other aspects of industrial practice. Graduate education is particularly strong in many U.S. engineering schools, in part because it is based on a research enterprise that is, generally speaking, second to none. This research orientation in turn enriches the undergraduate curriculum and influences its character through lectures and textbook development by faculty who are at the frontier of their field of knowledge and through the use of graduate students as teaching assistants. Many schools have programs that also provide undergraduates with direct research experience. This orienta- tion toward research and discovery is a major attraction for foreign 1This was the number of institutions in 1994 that had programs in engineering that were accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (The schools had 1,494 accredited degree-granting programs that year.) 19

20 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM students, who often take the knowledge gained back to their home countries and industries, where it is put to practical use in the global marketplace. Despite these strengths, there are many areas where engineering education must improve if it is to remain the best in the world and better serve the needs of the nation. AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT To attain the vision described in the preceding chapter will require changes in engineering education. Already, however, in each of the areas discussed below some pioneering engineering educators and institutions are pursuing new directions. Their approaches need to be disseminated, modified, and implemented more widely, and new approaches need to be tried and tailored to the circumstances and the nature of each institution. Some additional alternatives will be suggested in Chapter 5. A number of the industrial participants at the BEEd symposia expressed the view that radical change is needed. Paul Rubbert, Chief of Aerodynamics Research at Boeing “I have become increasingly aware Company, said: that in the average engineering project, the first 10 percent of the A sense of urgency is missing. We need to rec- decisions made effectively commit ognize that the undergraduate process is broken, between 80 and 90 percent of all the and cannot be fixed mainly by tinkering. Rather, it must be reinvented or reengineered. . . resources that subsequently flow into that project. Unfortunately, most Robert Richie, Director of University Affairs at Hewlett- engineers are ill-equipped to partici- pate in these important initial deci- Packard, agrees that “a complete reform and new mission sions because they are not purely is needed. . .” to produce needed changes. technical decisions. Although they Daniel Okun, Professor Emeritus of Environmental have important technical dimensions, Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel they also involve economics, ethics, Hill, painted a troubling picture in a letter sent to the politics, appreciation of international affairs, and general management BEEd (Okun, personal communication, March 22, 1984). considerations. Our current engineer- He noted that engineering is the only profession for ing curricula tend to focus on prepar- which a four-year program of study is all that is required ing engineers to handle the other 90 for professional status. As he pointed out: percent, the nut-and-bolt decisions that follow after the first 10 percent have been made. We need more • Prospective engineering students must make a deci- engineers who can tackle the entire sion to commit to engineering in the 11th grade; yet range of decisions.” many of the brightest young people prefer to keep their career options open longer than that. D. Allan Bromley, • A four-year undergraduate curriculum cannot provide Dean of Engineering, Yale University, Personal communication to the BEEd, engineering students with the same preparation for January 17, 1995 leadership as those who have enjoyed six or more years of higher education in preparation for other professions.

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 21 • Recognizing these limitations, many engineering students opt for graduate study in law or business; those who enter graduate engineering programs become more specialized in science and research, rather than in engineering. • Given all the technological advances that have been made in engineering since mid-century, how can the same length of time now as then be adequate to prepare a student for a career in professional engineering? Okun concluded by saying, “Many ‘band-aid’ solutions to these problems have been proposed and some acted upon, without much impact. Unless engineering educators are challenged to consider and adopt significant changes, I fear that engineers in the future will be technicians, in the service of a better educated and prepared leader- ship drawn from other professions.” Undergraduate Curriculum The one area in which change is needed most is the undergraduate engineering curriculum.2 It is now widely believed that for several decades too much emphasis was placed on engineering science (analysis) at the expense of design (creative “Engineering education needs to be a synthesis) and other aspects of the practice of engineer- process that emphasizes synthesis and ing. Notwithstanding that students need a solid founda- the integration of knowledge, and a much closer link among education, tion in basic mathematics and physical science to for- research, and professional practice.” mulate and solve problems, they also need much more exposure to the practice aspects of engineering. (Ap- Francis C. Lutz, pendix D presents a description, developed by the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, BEEd, of the purposes and principles of a progressive Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Personal communication to the BEEd, new undergraduate curriculum.) March 9, 1994 Many engineering educators and practitioners are ask- ing, Does today’s engineering curriculum adequately engage students? Does it prepare them to adapt to the changing demands of the current and future engineering workplace and life in a complex technological society? These general questions often take specific form, such as: • Do students gain a real sense of engineering early enough to hold their interest? 2Graduate engineering education also is in need of reform. However, the BEEd focused primarily on undergraduate education as the area having the greatest influ- ence on the competitiveness of U.S. industries, recognizing also that reforms here will build the base for future reforms at the graduate level.

22 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM • What should be taught as “fundamentals”? • Does engineering education integrate the fundamentals well enough with design and experimentation? • Is it sufficiently practice-oriented to prepare students to apply their knowledge quickly? (And should this be required in an undergraduate program?) • Is individual achievement emphasized too strongly over team- work? • Does the curriculum instill a sense of the social and business context and the rapidly changing, global nature of engineering today and in the future? • Is the curriculum updated frequently to reflect current and emerg- ing technology and tools? • Is the undergraduate educational experience broad enough and liberal enough to prepare students for possible entry into non- engineering professions, including general management? • Does the curriculum instill a knowledge of how to learn and a desire to learn in a wide range of areas, both technical and nontechnical, over the course of a lifetime? • How can the curriculum, along with requirements for an engi- neering degree, be structured so as to prepare students simulta- neously for engineering practice and graduate study? The essential question is: What minimum combination of funda- mentals; skills; and acquaintance with problem formulation and solu- tion, the process of design, and the nature of professional practice is required to satisfy the description of an engineer pre- sented in the BEEd’s vision? “We introduced a new approach in The National Science Foundation (NSF) has estab- the fall of 1991 that requires each lished several programs designed to promote compre- engineering freshman to take two hensive reforms in undergraduate engineering education. introductory engineering courses in In 1988 it announced 10 awards in undergraduate cur- the first year. These courses, offered by the six departments in the riculum development in engineering. The grants sup- College of Engineering, emphasize ported various approaches to improving undergraduate problem-solving, hands-on, and engineering learning, including experiments in planning, design skills. The philosophy is to implementing, and disseminating new curricula (NSF, expose students early to “real” engineering, concurrent with 1988). fundamentals.” One such initiative was Drexel University’s experi- mental Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineer- Edmond Ko, ing Students (E4), which sought a comprehensive restruc- Professor of Chemical Engineering, turing of the freshman and sophomore engineering cur- Carnegie Mellon University, riculum in terms of objectives, subject matter, and in- Personal communication to the BEEd March 24, 1994 structional methods. The E4 curriculum developed out of this effort stresses the unified foundations of engineering

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 23 rather than the compartmentalized collection of principles, divorced from engineering applications, that occupy the first two years of conventional undergraduate study. It also promotes the development of communication skills and encourages vigorous, continuous, life- long learning by exposing students to self-directed educational expe- riences and distance learning technologies. The university adopted the program throughout the College of Engineering in 1993–94 (Drexel University, 1992). Initial results have been extremely favor- able: for example, 62 percent of students entering E4 in fall 1989 received engineering degrees by the end of the 1994 summer term, compared with 32 percent of non-E4 engineering students at Drexel during the same period of time (Drexel University, 1994). In 1990, with the establishment of Engineering Education Coali- tions, NSF supplemented sponsorship of curriculum development experiments on individual campuses with multi-campus dissemina- tion of new curricula. Competitive awards are given to consortia of universities to participate in this program and support comprehensive curriculum reform at the engineering baccalaureate level. As of November 1994, a total of 58 colleges and universities were partici- pating in eight coalitions, representing every region of the United States and every type of engineering school. NSF’s goals in this program are to improve teaching, restructure the engineering curricu- lum, and increase the number of engineering bachelor’s degrees awarded to women, members of underrepresented minorities, and people with disabilities. The program seeks to make engineering education more relevant and responsive to students by promoting creativity and the ability to learn independently (NSF, 1993). A third NSF program, which began in 1991, was designed to encourage established engineering researchers in emerging fields to become involved in curriculum development. The Combined Re- search/Curriculum Development Program awards, as they are known, were each $400,000 over a three-year period, to be split evenly between research and curriculum development. One goal of these government-funded curriculum development programs is to produce portable curriculum modules that can be shared among engineering schools nationwide—on-line or via video- tape, text, television, and software—thereby increasing the dissemi- nation of high-quality educational materials and reducing the workload on faculty. Many individuals believe that on-line tutorials in the form of “learning modules” hold much promise for the future of engineer- ing education (McClintock, 1994). Industry’s efforts to reform undergraduate engineering education have been carried out generally on a smaller scale, with some

24 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM exceptions. For example, the American Electronics As- “For the student who needs a ‘hands- sociation formed a Design to Deliver program, funded on’ experience and aims at a terminal B.S. degree, an appropriate model by several large corporations. In this three-year program, might be the German Fachhoch- 15 companies are working with three universities to schule.” improve the product-quality and manufacturing empha- sis of curricula and to help faculty members develop the “I have seen a well-run co-op program knowledge and skills to carry out these improvements. create lots of motivation and broaden the views of the students.” Another significant effort toward reforming undergradu- ate engineering education was launched by The Boeing C.A. Desoer, Company in 1994 (McMasters and White, 1994). Professor Emeritus, Discussion of the many elements of curriculum re- University of California, Berkeley, form leads inevitably to a discussion of alternative paths Personal communication to the BEEd, February 9, 1994 to the bachelor’s degree. It is not realistic to expect a single curriculum to prepare students for (1) engineering practice immediately after graduation, (2) graduate en- gineering study and research, and (3) graduate study in other fields. Instead, there is a need for a variety of options. For example, there could be three tracks to the bachelor’s degree: a standard disciplinary degree, a “general engineering” degree offer- ing the flexibility for pursuit of a master’s degree in engineering or another professional field,3 and a research-oriented track that is essentially the first four years of a research doctoral program. Various co-op (work-study) versions of the first two options might entail a heavier emphasis on industrial experience while making a longer program more affordable and improving the student’s motiva- tion and employment prospects. Each of the tracks should offer students the flexibility, in terms of knowledge or academic credits, to move to other tracks, and each should instill a knowledge of how to learn autonomously through exposure to distance learning and other media for obtaining continuous education. The BEEd emphasizes that a sound engineering education is just the beginning of a lifelong educational experience. Perhaps the most important thing that a student can learn during the initial engineering education experience is how to continue learning on his or her own initiative. The distinction between education and training is a crucial one; knowing how to learn autonomously is a hallmark of education. Finally, an aspect of U.S. engineering education that is often cited as desirable, but which is seldom addressed in the curriculum, is the 3Frank Schowengerdt, Vice President for Academic Affairs at the Colorado School of Mines, reports that the four-year general engineering degree is now the most popular option at the school, with 850 (in 1994) students majoring in an interdisci- plinary degree accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technol- ogy.

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 25 need for graduates to have a sense of the global market- “The focus should be on employing place and the globalization of engineering. One factor of cooperative learning strategies and establishing classroom climates that this need is that strong foreign competition in high- encourage, not alienate or bore, the technology industries is still a relatively new phenom- students. This does not mean lowered enon, and most faculty members have little direct expe- standards—quite to the contrary. I rience with it. Another factor is that ways of addressing have completely changed my philoso- the issue—for example, learning foreign languages and phy of “weeding out” students. . . . Now my students are learning much providing for long- or short-term exchange of students— more, they are enjoying learning and tend to be time-consuming and expensive. Other mecha- are proud of their achievements nisms, such as seminars presented by foreign-born fac- (including learning communication ulty members (particularly those with industrial experi- skills); and hardly anyone drops out or ence) and adjunct faculty from industry on aspects of this fails, because I have set the target of “zero defects” and then provided the issue, might have value. means for all students to succeed.” Teaching Styles and Methods Edward Lumsdaine, Dean of Engineering, A widespread tradition in engineering education has Michigan Technological University, been the “boot camp” approach, in which professors Personal communication to the BEEd, March 21,1994 typically have made little effort to help students over- come the formidable demands placed upon them. The philosophy is that “if you are tough on them, the ones who survive have what it takes to be engineers.” Thus, engineering education has traditionally been seen as a winnowing-out process. The old warning to entering students, “Look to your right and left; only one of you will graduate” is still valid. Only the most committed and competitive students survive for four years; overall retention rates for engineering programs are on the order of 65 percent (AAES, 1993, 1994).4 Rigor and discipline are certainly necessary in engineering, but they are counterproductive when taken to such an extreme that many talented and capable students become alienated or simply lose interest (Seymour and Hewitt, 1994). Static teaching methods do not help. The current environment for engineering education tends not to foster either good teaching or effective learning. It is generally recognized that today’s young people, in contrast to their counterparts of a generation ago, are more oriented toward fast-paced, dynamic visual imagery. Yet engineering education often is still delivered as it was 50 years ago, by a professor standing in front of the lecture hall with a piece of chalk and a 4This is almost certainly a high estimate. It is based on a comparison of entering freshmen and graduates four years later and does not take into account freshmen with undeclared majors, students entering at later points from uncounted institutions such as two-year colleges, and other factors. More reliable data on retention do not exist.

26 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM pointer—or, more recently, an overhead projector—and relying on words and static symbols or drawings. Teaching style can do much to communicate and reveal the excitement and allure of engineering, and even the lecturer can be quite effective if he or she is a talented presenter. But the lecture-hall format provides little or no opportunity for student–teacher interac- tion—especially for the mentoring, counseling, and nur- turing that many students need. Most engineering fac- THE “CLASSICAL” ulty know little about how students learn; research on the ENGINEERING EDUCATION: cognitive processes of learning is relatively new. Very METHODOLOGICAL few engineering faculty possess any knowledge of this PROS AND CONS field. Yet it may hold promise for improving teaching In terms of methodology and technol- and learning. ogy, the classical engineering educa- For example, many believe that highly participatory tion consists of a teacher, blackboard, “active learning” methods are more effective for stimu- textbook, homework, and laboratory. lating student interest and learning. One approach now coming into greater use is “cooperative learning,” an The advantages of classical education are instructional method that involves students working in • compulsion; teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions • credit; that involve both positive interdependence (all members • some adaptivity and must cooperate to complete the task) and group account- customization; ability (each member is accountable for the entire final • moderate attention factor; • some interactivity; outcome). Inquiry laboratories, seminars taught by teams • shared experience—friendship of teachers, and project-centered classes are other active and misery; learning strategies. Most emphasize teamwork—which • side channels and personal emulates the way engineering is actually practiced—as elements—jokes, etc.—;and opposed to the education of individual performers, which • continuity. has been the traditional approach of engineering educa- The disadvantages of classical tion. education are The importance of teamwork as a vital component of • it is paced to least common engineering, whether in the classroom or in practice, can denominator, • variability of teachers, be dramatically enhanced by faculty teamwork in the • it is often boring or poorly delivery of education. The single-instructor classroom prepared, has its place, but team-teaching and shared responsibili- • it is only moderately adaptive, ties for course and curriculum development set an im- • modest use of graphics and visual portant example. Such team-oriented methods tend— material, • teachers are often unprepared or through competition, cooperation, synergy, and peer unavailable for new subjects, pressure—to produce better teaching. • laboratories are often obsolete and Nothing has been found that can replace strong, too expensive, supportive, one-on-one interaction between a student • blackboard handwriting is slow, and a faculty member. But many new educational tech- and • textbooks are often insufficiently nologies offer the possibility of making the delivery of explanatory. engineering education more effective, more efficient, and more interesting. The potential for use of such

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 27 technologies is growing rapidly but is still largely untapped. (The average engineer in industry utilizes a higher level of supporting technology than most academics do.) Several factors have combined in recent years to improve the potential of educational technologies. First is the increased availability and lowered costs of the technologies themselves, from videotape to personal computers to television satel- lite broadcasting. Data compression techniques (facilitating transmis- sion of video images), the growing national information infrastruc- ture, high-speed networks, multimedia conferencing, wireless digital communication, and hand-held computer notepads herald an even more exciting range of opportunities. Second, larger class sizes and a concomitant increase in demand for specialized courses suggest the potential usefulness of these technologies. Third, accompanying the growing demand is a scarcity of faculty to teach undergraduate courses, given budget constraints and the increasing pressure on faculty to focus on securing research grants and conducting cutting- edge research. Fourth, it can be anticipated that the advent of the “information highway” will alter students’ styles of learning in the direction of these technologies. Because the excellence and accessibility of U.S. graduate engineer- ing education are recognized around the world, foreign nationals are very heavily represented in U.S. engineering schools. Their contribu- tions as teaching assistants and faculty are vital, but some have trouble communicating in English, and others have been accused of bringing to the classroom inappropriate cultural attitudes—for example, re- garding the roles of women and minorities (NRC, 1988). Finally, it should be noted that one of the impediments to effective teaching of engineering is that so many engineering faculty lack sufficient contact with engineering practice. In the absence of such interaction, they are at a disadvantage in conveying to their students the excitement and opportunity that exists in professional engineering practice. Diversity of Students and Faculty Demographic change and the related issue of ethnic diversity pose major challenges to engineering education. The proportion of white college-age males in the national population, the group from which engineering has traditionally drawn its recruits, is declining steadily. Half of those retiring from the workforce by 2000 will be white males, but over 70 percent of new entrants to the workforce will be women, minorities, and immigrants. During the 1980s while the U.S. minority population grew by 35 percent, the white, non-Hispanic population grew only 2 percent (Vetter, 1992). At the same time, the number of

28 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM FIGURE 3-1 Engineering B.S. degrees, by race or eth- nicity and residency status, selected years, 1977–1990 (National Science Foundation, 1992, p. 64). FIGURE 3-2 Engineering B.S. degrees to members of racial and ethnic minorities, selected years, 1977–1990 (National Science Foundation, 1992, p. 64). white males achieving engineering degrees has declined sharply (Figure 3-1). The number of racial and ethnic minority students receiving degrees in engineering increased somewhat during the 1980s (Figure 3-2), while the number of women declined from its peak in 1985 (Figure 3-3). Nevertheless except for male Asian Americans, who have made dramatic gains, none of these groups has approached full representation among engineering graduates. Today, women receive about 15 percent of B.S. engineering degrees, African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans—who together make up 27.5 percent of the college-age population—receive fewer than 8 percent of such degrees (NSF, 1992). Retention (the completion of a full academic program) is a special problem for minority students in engineering education; they represent more than 15 percent of first- year engineering students, but, as Figure 3-4 shows, more than half

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 29 FIGURE 3-3 Engineering B.S. degrees to women, by race or ethnicity and residency status, selected years, 1977– 1990 (National Science Foun- dation, 1992, p. 64). FIGURE 3-4 Representation of minority and nonminori- ty groups in undergraduate engineering education and their representation in col- lege age population, 1990– 1991 (Campbell, 1992b). drop out or switch to another major. For example (see Figure 3-4), minority men make up about 12 percent of entering students but only about 7 percent of graduates. Recent indications are that retention is only about 35 percent for African Americans and Native Americans and 45 percent for Hispanics, compared with roughly 65 percent for all freshmen and nearly 100 percent for Asians (bearing in mind that retention figures probably err on the high side). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the leading research universities are experiencing reten- tion rates for minorities that are even lower than average. The negative factors in engineering education described in previous sections appear to be magnified for women and minority students,5 5The BEEd recognizes that the experiences of (white) women and those of the various minority groups in engineering education differ considerably. These differ- ences need to be taken carefully into account when designing ameliorative actions and programs.

30 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM who are often acutely aware of their underrepresentation and who may be even more put off than others by the boot camp atmosphere prevalent in undergraduate engineering education (Carmichael and Sevenair, 1991). Persistent anecdotal evidence points to discrimina- tion—mostly unintentional or cultural but occasionally intentional— against underrepresented groups. According to Seymour and Hewitt (1994), the high number of foreign students and teaching assistants is part of the problem, as in some cases their cultural values impede positive interaction with women and minorities.6 Apart from retention, another very important factor is K–12 preparation. Female and minority students may be receiving the message, all through their early schooling, that a career in science or mathematics (or engineering) is not for them. Some aspects of the problem affect all students, regardless of race or gender. This issue is discussed in more detail in the section on K–12 preparation later in this chapter. Most engineering faculties today remain bastions of white males, despite the changing demographics of their students and the even more rapidly changing demographics of the U.S. population as a whole. Although there has been an influx of non-white scholars from Asia and the Middle East, engineering faculties remain largely male. Many in the engineering community call for the engineering faculty of the future to be more diverse than that of today. “Diversity” has several different facets: • diversity based on race, gender, and ethnic background; • diversity of background in engineering practice, including de- sign and management in industry and government; and • diversity of academic background and orientation toward teach- ing, research, and professional practice. Faculty characteristics do vary among institutions, reflecting in part differences in educational objectives. Nevertheless, greater faculty diversity—complemented by excellence—must be a goal for all institutions, not only to encourage equal access for all students but also to expose students to a wider spectrum of views as to what engineering is and how it is practiced, as well as to familiarize them 6The BEEd, in its regional symposia, addressed the question of the large popula- tion of foreign-born students and faculty and their effect on the engineering educa- tion system and presented a range of options for action. Many participants agreed that the appropriate course is to make no changes in the current system but rather to continue to seek the best students, regardless of their national origin. Therefore, this report does not raise the topic as an important issue.

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 31 with the composition of the society that is served by the practice of engineering. Faculty Reward System In engineering, and indeed across all academic disciplines, there is concern that the reward systems by which faculty performance is evaluated produce incentives that often lead faculty members onto a narrowly focused career path in academe. These incentives typically create a bias favoring research over undergraduate teaching while also discouraging mobility of faculty between academe, industry, and government. In effect, they may place a penalty on activities such as curriculum development, interactions with industry, outreach to precollege students, student advising, professional de- velopment, and other professorial functions designed to “There is no fundamental dichotomy foster a more integrated academic community and a between research and teaching. more well-rounded educational experience. Indeed, many would hold that good Nationwide, perhaps the most controversial aspect of teaching over a career which spans 3- the faculty reward system is the overemphasis on re- 4 generations of new technology is impossible for one not engaged in search at the expense of undergraduate teaching, which research.” is seen at most schools to varying degrees.7 While teaching usually has a prominent place in formal state- John J. McCoy, ments of faculty review criteria, it is often weighted Dean of Engineering, lightly in faculty review processes. “Buying out” of The Catholic University of America, Personal communication to BEEd, teaching obligations with research dollars (being ex- March 28, 1994 cused from teaching to conduct funded research) is an increasingly common practice in many institutions, en- couraged by institutional financial pressure. This prac- tice is detrimental to the quality of engineering education when carried too far and should be carefully monitored. The roots of this situation lie in faculty attitudes toward teaching and in pressure from peers, academic administrators, and research funding agencies. Because many institutions today are operating with budgets that are far out of balance, faculty are expected to help make up the shortfall by securing research funds, thus reinforcing the emphasis on research. Another force tipping the balance toward research is that academic institutions, in making tenure and promotion decisions, generally find research quality a more straightforward 7Professor Robert Whitman, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out in a letter to the BEEd that the issue is not so much “research versus teaching,” (since research is part-and-parcel of graduate education) as it is “research versus engineering” (since most students do not have sufficient opportunities to work with engineers who have experience in practice).

32 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM criterion to measure. Academe has developed accepted methods for evaluating the quality of research but has not developed comparable methods for evaluating teaching and professional service. Recognition of this situation and its implications is growing. Many institutions are attempting to devise and institutionalize ways to recognize and reward effective teaching. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s high-visibility program of internal MacVicker Faculty Fellowships is one example; another is Stanford University’s Hu- manities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Excellence in Teaching, which includes a base salary augmentation in addition to a cash award.) Some schools have instituted a non-tenure track faculty option that does not require teachers to pursue scholarly research, but this approach is highly controversial. Changing the incentives will seriously challenge engineering faculties and academic administrators. At many institutions, a gen- eration or more of faculty members have been hired and promoted primarily on the basis of their strengths in research. Efforts to change the incentives favoring research will be forced to face the fact that many faculty members consider research to be inherently more fulfilling and valuable than undergraduate teaching. In addition, the continued presence of faculty unions (which even extend to postdoctoral fellows and teaching assistants) may hamper efforts to change the incentive system. Finally, it will be necessary to develop a wider range of effective teaching assessment and evaluation meth- ods and mechanisms. The real issue, once these imbalances are rectified, is not whether research is favored over teaching but how to tie research to teaching in the most productive way or redefine research to include teaching (Boyer, 1991) and how to provide students with a broader vision of engineering than the collective scope of their professors’ particular research areas can convey. Research and teaching are not antagonis- tic, and active involvement of undergraduates in frontier research is an excellent way to broaden their vision. Flexibility and Adaptability Engineering education tends to be conservative in both its peda- gogical methods (including curriculum) and its institutionalized attitudes.8 This conservatism produces a degree of stability (perhaps inflexibility is a more apt term) that results in a relatively slow response to external stimuli. A case in point might be an overempha- 8Perhaps the historical root of this conservatism is the responsibility for ensuring that engineering designs function safely and reliably.

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 33 sis on the production of engineering researchers, who compete for increasingly limited resources, at the expense of engineers advancing the state of engineering practice—especially in manufacturing and construction, where the need is great (White, 1991). Given the many types of changes described earlier that are imping- ing on engineering, the engineering education system needs to become much more flexible and adaptable. Establishing interdisciplinary collaborations with science and liberal arts departments and business schools, in pursuit of both research and pedagogical developments, is an approach that could be useful (see, for example, Kapoor, 1994). It is possible that engineering schools will acquire greater flexibility through more extensive interaction with other educational units. Collaboration with industry and government also “ensures the vitality and relevance of engineering programs” and helps engineering stu- dents reach out more to the society around them (ASEE, 1994). A New Collegiality Collegiality, or the shared sense of mission, purpose, and values among the faculty, was a more common feature of academic institutions in the past. In the post–World COLLEGIALITY AND TEACHING War II era in engineering schools, this collegiality has In a study of conditions within tended to be eroded by trends such as larger institutional departments at 20 colleges and size; competitive grantsmanship; a loss of clarity about universities, Massy et al. (1994) found the role of engineering; and a narrower focus on the a high degree of collegiality being individual’s social, political, and research interests (see practiced in those “exemplary depart- ments” that actively support under- Kerr, 1994, for example). A new collegiality in engineer- graduate education. The distinctive ing departments and schools—which the BEEd believes characteristics of this collegiality is a vital element of responsible “institutional citizen- include an emphasis on teaching, ship”—is essential if the actions and objectives of engi- frequent interaction, tolerance of neering education (e.g., the evaluation of teaching qual- differences, generational and workload equity, peer evaluation, and consensus ity and curriculum renewal) are to be achieved. The new decision making. Collegial organiza- collegiality will be enhanced through organizing intro- tions, the authors stated, emphasize ductory courses, through professors lecturing in each consensus, shared power, consultation, other’s courses—not only within departments and the and collective responsibilities; they engineering school but across the entire university—, are communities in which status differences are de-emphasized and and through including material in one’s course that is individuals interact as equals. outside one’s field (necessitating collegial help), along with team teaching and peer evaluation of teaching. K–12 Preparation The process of creating a successful engineering student begins early, in elementary school or even preschool. But the supply “pipe- line,” reaching from kindergarten through the senior year of high

34 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM school (K–12), is not producing a sufficient flow of students who are informed about engineering and who are well-prepared and moti- vated to study engineering. It is not drawing from across the full breadth of the pool of potential engineers, and many young students do not obtain the knowledge and capabilities they need. In many cases, both female and minority students are being told (whether directly or indirectly) that serious study of mathematics and science is not for them. Thus, the system is not encouraging all those who might have an aptitude for and interest in studying engineering. In contrast to most other professionals, future engineers (along with mathematicians and some scientists) tend to make their career choice in junior high/middle school. If they are not prepared and motivated to study engineering at that point, it is likely that they never will be. Since the publication of A Nation At Risk more than a decade ago (U.S. Department of Education, 1983), it has been widely acknowl- edged that U.S. secondary school students have fallen behind their counterparts in most other industrialized nations in their knowledge of science and mathematics. Although average mathematics and science test scores in national assessments improved slightly during the 1980s, they are still well below those seen in the 1960s (National Science Board, 1991, p.14). Quantitative reasoning and problem- solving skills are particularly lacking, even in students who score well on standardized exams. Inadequate mathematics and science preparation limits both the quality and the quantity of potential entrants to engineering. Many of those students who do enter engineering study are not prepared for its rigors, in terms of either knowledge or analytical skills. The result is students struggling to keep up, contributing to a high rate of attrition. In particular, inadequate preparation limits the participa- tion of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other underrepresented minority groups, who lag their majority counter- parts (and Asian Americans) in mathematics and science prepared- ness. Over the past few years, many states have raised their standards for promotion and for high school graduation, revised teacher licensing and training practices, and improved the measurement of school performance. Other national reform efforts are being carried out. For example: • The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has estab- lished guidelines for mathematics curricula. • The National Science Teachers Association is conducting a

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 35 study of science curricula and has completed a science curricu- lum guide for grades 6–12 (NSTA, 1993). • The NSF has established both a Statewide Strategic Initiative (in 21 states) and an Urban Systemic Initiative (earmarked for the nation’s 25 largest urban school districts) in an effort to transform the way U.S. schoolchildren learn about science, mathematics, and technology. • The Division of Undergraduate Education of the NSF is manag- ing Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, which bring together science and engineering faculty and education faculty to prepare future K–12 teachers. • The National Research Council (NRC, 1989, 1990a, b) has issued several reports on mathematics curricula and teaching practices and has issued draft standards for K–12 science educa- tion (NRC, 1994), which will be released in 1995 as a companion to the mathematics standards. Federal spending on precollege mathematics and science education has increased substantially in the past few years. According to “Spe- cial Tabulations” provided by the working group on the budget of the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Education and Training (estimate as of May 1994), the federal government is spending $955.431 million on science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at the precollege level in fiscal year 1994. (This represents an increase of 85.7 percent over fiscal year 1991 spending; FCCSET, 1992.) In the White House, the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Education and Training coordi- nates these activities. The main responsibility for improving the mathemat- “Student-to-student contact is particu- ics and science preparedness of students lies with the larly effective. Some ideas: elementary and secondary schools. Together with par- ents, it is their responsibility to develop talent, encourage • Bring demonstrations to middle schools (e.g., a solar car team). interest, and ensure that students persevere with math • Bring middle and high school and science courses. Schools that fail to offer the neces- students to campus, where college sary courses, or that eliminate potentially capable stu- students can demonstrate equipment. dents by applying rigid criteria that do not allow for • Give college students credit for mentoring activities in working with individual variation in abilities or background, restrict middle/high school students.” access unnecessarily. Teachers who are poorly prepared to communicate the attractions of science and engineer- G. Wayne Clough, ing as careers also limit the potential talent pool. It is President, important for elementary and secondary school teachers Georgia Institute of Technology, Personal communication to the BEEd, to understand what engineering is (as distinct from February 28, 1994 science), so that they can advise and encourage potential engineering students.

36 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM However, higher education also has some responsibility for K–12 science, math, and “pre-engineering” education. Engineering schools cannot simply assume that an adequate supply of motivated, well- prepared students will always arrive at their doorstep. Direct outreach to K–12 students is vital to their mission. University faculty and laboratories may seem remote and abstract to precollege students and teachers alike. Direct contact is the best way to dispel that remoteness and impart a realistic understanding of what engineers and engineer- ing students actually do. A few engineering schools are carrying on activities with precollege students—inviting them to visit, mentoring them, carrying design projects into K–12 schools as demonstrations, etc. However, such interactions are still uncommon. Technological Literacy The distinction between science and technology needs to be addressed in Beyond the K–12 system, in this intensely techno- K–12 and in universities. Our meekly logical era it is essential that as many members of society accepting technological successes as “science achievements” and techno- as possible understand the nature of technology, how it logical failures as “engineering has transformed the modern world, and what are the catastrophes” is a direct result of our contemporary issues involving engineering that are sig- premise that engineering has its roots nificant for the future of this culture, all of which make in science. up a concept termed “technological literacy.” This topic David Kingery, has important ramifications in that it affects the public Regents Professor, support for engineering education and engineering en- University of Arizona, deavors, as well as having a strong impact on the number Personal communication to the BEEd, and quality of students interested in pursuing an engi- March 3, 1994 neering education. In view of its educational mission, engineering edu- cation has a first-line responsibility for improving the technological literacy of the general public—especially for groups whose influence has direct impact on major political and economic decisions for society and on the engineering profession itself. One of the most effective routes to this goal is to increase the technological literacy of non-engineering students. To achieve this, it is necessary first to convince faculty throughout the university (including engi- neering faculty) of the importance of teaching non-engineering students about technology and their responsibility for doing this. Second, ways should be developed to do so economically and effectively using materials already developed and working with experienced, effective faculty both in engineering and in other fields. The materials developed in the New Liberal Arts program sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation will serve as one good basis for this effort (Goldberg, 1990).

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 37 The BEEd believes that there are three components to technological literacy: knowledge of how objects and systems work, the social context within which engineering operates, and the cultural meaning of engineering. Because of the tendency for faculty to be narrowly focused, many engineering professors themselves know little about the broad field of engineering. This means that the teaching of technological literacy requires the new collegiality described above and will help bring faculty together to promote it. Continuous Education of Engineers Engineers in practice encounter two major types of change, namely, changes in the technological content of engineering knowledge and in the context of professional practice. Both circumstances tend to shorten the productive career lifetimes of engineers and thereby reduce the effectiveness of industry. The first type of change, in knowledge content, is predictable with an observable average period of about a decade in most fields. The second change, in practice context (such as economic and job stability, national goals, global trade patterns, etc.), is less predictable in PREACHING VS. PRACTICING period but is fairly rapid. The challenge lies in the rapidity of change. Previously In a survey of industrial firms in such change was on the time-scale of a career lifetime, surrounding states that was conducted whereas now and in the future many engineers will by the University of Michigan College of Engineering (Atreya, 1994), 64 experience several change cycles over a career lifetime, percent of surveyed companies said each requiring the acquisition of new or updated knowl- that they rank continuing education as edge (IEEE, 1995). either “high” or “medium” among Given the large investment of educational resources their corporate priorities, but the same and experience engineers represent, the nation cannot companies said that only about 30 percent of their professional and afford to view them as commodities, to be replaced when technical employees actually utilize they become “obsolete.” It is essential that engineering continuing education opportunities. professionals continue to develop their knowledge and Incentives are not evident: only 5 capabilities over a lifetime of practice. This will require percent of the responding companies a commitment to lifelong learning, which needs, in turn, require employees to earn continuing education credits; only 13 percent the support of a continuing engineering education sys- require employees to earn any other tem and the motivation to use it. type of special certification; and 79 “Refresher” courses, retraining, postbaccalaureate pro- percent give no rewards or recognition fessional education, and continuing education are all for participation in continuing viable means of minimizing the avoidable loss of engi- education activities. Significantly, 42 percent of the managers responding neers due to rapid technological obsolescence. Many said that employees “lacked a sense of private educational providers offer courses commer- perceived need or payoff for participa- cially, and the largest companies generally offer pro- tion.” grams in-house. However, continuing education oppor- tunities for engineers today are poorly integrated and not

38 ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM readily available to all engineers. For example, small and “I believe that the central issue in medium-sized companies generally lack the resources to continuing education today is a failure to communicate availability of mount effective training programs, and engineers in services to the workforce and a failure rural locations tend to have fewer opportunities than to empower engineers to make those located near cities. decisions concerning their continuing Adult or continuing education overall is said to be a education without seeking the ap- $30 billion per year business—larger even than the proval of managers. In today’s business climate of severe cost control, primary training enterprise. Nevertheless, continuing educational expenditures are often education and training of practicing engineers has never treated as “overhead” to be controlled, been a primary emphasis of the engineering education rather than as an investment which system. Although the opportunities for earning income leads to improved return on invest- through continuing education programs are substantial ment. (especially since large U.S. corporations are reducing Lionel V. Baldwin, their in-house offerings in this area), only a few of the President, traditional baccalaureate institutions have pursued this National Technological University, opportunity aggressively. Engineering colleges typi- Personal communication to the BEEd, cally offer short courses aimed at local industries. In November 24, 1993 some cases, these are televised or supplied as videotapes for viewing at industrial sites. However, the offering tends not to be broad. Content is usually geared to the research proclivities of individual faculty and may often be quite theoretical in nature. Marketing of these courses to the potential audiences is uneven. The incentives for A VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY attending (where they exist at all) are usually tied to company advancement rather than to the specific appli- Carnegie Mellon University has proposed an experimental Virtual cability of the knowledge gained. University that would encompass: No continuing education programs are subject to accreditation (nor does the BEEd call for that). Indeed, 1. an interactive multimedia class- no standards currently exist for these offerings. The room where distance learners can question is, then, by what means can the content and participate real-time; 2. an on-line Internet library offering quality of these offerings be controlled, and how can programs in digital video; their value be increased and their utilization expanded? 3. a portable classroom consisting of Universities have a critical role to play. wireless equipment; and It is vital to instill in engineering students both the 4. interactive research facilities and skills needed to acquire continuous learning from vari- research on interactive technologies. ous sources beyond the period of formal schooling and This is only one example of many an understanding of the necessity for doing so. This will similar experiments now under way at involve instilling an awareness of the sources of “dis- U.S. engineering institutions. All such tance learning” and exposing students to the mecha- experiments recognize that other nisms and techniques employed in accessing on-line characteristics beyond these “virtual” ones are necessary to fulfill the overall instructional services of various kinds, both at home and educational mission of a university. at the work site. Concepts such as Carnegie Mellon’s Virtual University (see box this page) and the Virtual

ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 39 Online University9 can be useful. Seminars presented by industrial representatives, such as adjunct professors, on their own experiences with continuous education and the value they have found in it could be quite effective as well. 9Established in 1994 by a group of educators who met on the Internet, Virtual Online University will begin its first term in spring 1995 with an initial on-line offering of 40–60 courses. Courses will meet regularly and include a combination of readings, exams, and research projects.

Next: IV. ACHIEVING CHANGE »
Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $37.00 Buy Ebook | $29.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Traditionally, engineering education books describe and reinforce unchanging principles that are basic to the field. However, the dramatic changes in the engineering environment during the last decade demand a paradigm shift from the engineering education community. This revolutionary volume addresses the development of long-term strategies for an engineering education system that will reflect the needs and realities of the United States and the world in the 21st century. The authors discuss the critical challenges facing U.S. engineering education and present a plan addressing these challenges in the context of rapidly changing circumstances, technologies, and demands.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!