|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK + PDF PAPERBACK PDF BOOK PDF CHAPTERS Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. 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 19
3
Engineering Educotion Today
SOME IMPORTANT ANGUS
The success of U.S. engineering education has long been recog-
nizecl worI(lwide. There are 311 engineering schools in the United
States,' which are open to academically qualifier! students from any
country, class, race, or ethnic group. Top students from around the
world vie to attend U.S. colleges ant! universities to study engineering.
U.S. engineering education is solidly baser! on in-clepth study of the
natural sciences, engineering science, and mathematics, an approach
recommended by the influential Grinter report in the 1950s (ASEE,
19551. 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 e(lucation 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 clevelopment 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 or~enta-
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
OCR for page 20
20
ENGINEERING ED UCATION: 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.
GRENS HEEDING 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
decisions made effectively commit
between 80 and 90 percent of all the
resources that subsequently flow into
that project. Unfortunately, most
engineers are Ill-equipped to part~c~-
pate in these important initial deci
sions because they are not purely
technical decisions. Although they
have important technical dimensions,
they also involve economics, ethics,
politics, appreciation of international
affairs, and general management
considerations. Our current engineer
ing curricula tend to focus on prepar
ing engineers to handle the other 90
percent, the nut-and-bolt decisions
that follow after the first 10 percent
have been made. We need more
engineers who can tackle the entire
range of decisions."
D. Allan Bromley,
Dean of Engineering, Yale University,
Personal communication to the BEEd,
January 17, 1995
A sense of urgency is missing. We need to rec-
ognize that the undergraduate process is broken,
and cannot be fixed mainly by tinkering. Rather,
it must be reinvented or reengineered. . .
Robert Richie, Director of University Affairs at Hewlett-
Packard, agrees that "a complete reform and new mission
is needed. . ." to produce needed changes.
Daniel Okun, Professor Emeritus of Environmental
Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, painted a troubling picture in a letter sent to the
BEEd (Okun, personal communication, March 22, ~ 9841.
He noted that engineering is the only profession for
which a four-year program of study is all that is required
for professional status. As he pointed out:
· Prospective engineering students must make a deci
sion to commit to engineering in the ~ Ith grade; yet
many of the brightest young people prefer to keep their
career options open longer than that.
· ,% . . · . . .
.
A tour-year undergraduate curriculum cannot provide
engineering students with the same preparation for
leadership as those who have enjoyed six or more
years of higher education in preparation for other
r
proresslons.
OCR for page 21
ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY
2
· 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 macle 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-aicl' solutions to these
problems have been proposed and some actec] upon, without much
impact. Unless engineering educators are challenged to consider and
adopt significant changes, ~ fear that engineers in the future will be
technicians, in the service of a better educated and prepared leader-
ship drawn from other professions."
Undergr~duotQ Curriculum
The one area in which change is neecled 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
synthesis) and other aspects of the practice of engineer-
ing. Notwithstanding that students nee(1 a solid founda-
tion in basic mathematics and physical science to for-
mulate and solve problems, they also need much more
exposure to the practice aspects of engineering. (Ap-
pendix D presents a description, developed by the
BEEd, of the purposes and principles of a progressive
new undergraduate curriculum.)
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 ant! 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?
"Engineering education needs to be a
process that emphasizes synthesis and
the integration of knowledge, and a
much closer link among education,
research, and professional practice."
Francis C. Lutz,
Dean of Undergraduate Studies,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
Personal communication to the BEEd,
March 9, 1994
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.
OCR for page 22
22
ENGINEERING ED UCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM
· What shoul(1 be taught as "funciamentals"?
· Does engineering education integrate the fundamentals well
enough with design and experimentation?
· Is it sufficiently practice-orientec! to prepare students to apply
their knowledge quickly? (An(1 should this be required in an
un(lergraduate program?)
· Is inclivi(lual achievement emphasized too strongly over team-
work?
· Does the curriculum instill a sense of the social and business
context anti 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 unclergraduate 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 ant! 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 stu(ly?
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 BEEct's vision?
"We introduced a new approach in
the fall of 1991 that requires each
engineering freshman to take two
intros uctory engineering courses In
the first year. These courses,
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has estab
lished several programs designed to promote compre
hensive reforms in unclergracluate engineering education.
In 1988 it announced 10 awards in undergraduate cur
offered by the six departments in the riculum clevelopment 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" ~ 9~'
One such initiative was Drexe} University's experi-
mental Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineer-
ing Students (E4), which sought a comprehensive restruc
. . .
engineering, concurrent wit.
fundamentals."
Edmond Ko,
Professor of Chemical Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University,
Personal communication to the
BEEd March 24, 1994
luring of the freshman and sophomore engineering cur-
riculum in terms of objectives, subject matter, and in-
structional methods. The E4 curriculum developed out of
this effort stresses the unified foundations of engineering
OCR for page 23
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
(Drexe] University, ~ 9921. Initial results have been extremely favor-
able: for example, 62 percent of students entering E4 in fall 1989
received engineering degrees by the ens} of the 1994 summer term,
compared with 32 percent of non-E4 engineering students at Drexe}
during the same period of time (Drexe! University, 19941.
in 1990, with the establishment of Engineering Education Coali-
tions, NSF supplemented sponsorship of curriculum clevelopment
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 ant! 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, 19931.
A third NSF program, which began in 1991, was (lesigne(1 to
encourage establisher! engineering researchers in emerging fielcis to
become involves] 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-fundect curriculum development
programs is to produce portable curriculum modules that can be
share(1 among engineering schools nationwide on-line or via video-
tape, text, television, anti software thereby increasing the (lissemi-
nation of high-quality educational materials and reducing the workload
on faculty. Many individuals believe that on-line tutorials in the form
of "learning moclules" hold much promise for the future of engineer-
ing education (McClintock, 19941.
Tndustry's efforts to reform undergra(luate engineering education
have been carried out generally on a smaller scale, with some
1- - - Cat-
OCR for page 24
24
ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM
"For the student who needs a 'hands
on' experience and aims at a terminal
B.S. degree, an appropriate model
might be the German Fachhoch-
schule."
"I have seen a well-run co-op program
create lots of motivation and broaden
the views of the students."
C.A. Desoer,
Professor Emeritus.
University of California, Berkeley,
Personal communication to the BEEd,
February 9, 1994
exceptions. For example, the American Electronics As-
sociation formed a Design to Deliver program, funded
by several large corporations. In this three-yearprogram,
15 companies are working with three universities to
improve the pro(luct-quality and manufacturing empha-
sis of curricula and to help faculty members develop the
knowledge and skills to carry out these improvements.
Another significant effort toward} reforming undergradu-
ate engineering education was launched by The Boeing
Company in 1994 (McMasters and White, 19941.
Discussion of the many elements of curriculum re-
form leacis inevitably to a discussion of alternative paths
to the bachelor's degree. It is not realistic to expect a
single curriculum to prepare students for ~ ~ ~ engineering
. . . ,. ~ . ~
practice 1mmecllate .y alter grac nation, ~ grac uate 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-or~ented 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 cur~cuTum, 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.
OCR for page 25
ENGlNEERlNG EDUCATION TODAY
25
"The focus should be on employing
cooperative reaming strategies and
establishing classroom climates that
encourage, not alienate or bore, the
students. This does not mean lowered
standards~uite to the contrary. I
have completely changed my philoso-
phy of"weeding out" students....
Now my students are reaming much
more, they are enjoying reaming and
are proud of their achievements
(including reaming communication
skills); and hardly anyone drops out or
fails, because I have set the target of
"zero defects" and then provided the
means for all students to succeed."
Edward Lumsdaine~
Dean of Engineering,
Michigan Technological University,
Personal communication to the BEEd,
March 21, 1994
need for graduates to have a sense of the global market-
place and the globalization of engineering. One factor of
this need is that strong foreign competition in high-
technology industries is still a relatively new phenom-
enon, anti most faculty members have little direct expe-
rience with it. Another factor is that ways of addressing
the issue- for example, learning foreign languages and
providing for long- or short-term exchange of students-
tend to be time-consuming and expensive. Other mecha-
nisms, such as seminars presented by foreign-born fac-
ulty members (particularly those with inclustrial experi-
ence) and adjunct faculty from industry on aspects of this
issue, might have value.
Teaching soles And Methods
A wi(lesprea(1 tradition in engineering education has
been the "boot camp" approach, in which professors
typically have made little effort to help students over-
come the formidable clemancis placer! 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 trarlitionalIv been seen as a winnowina-out
,=. .. .
, - - -cat - - -
process. ~ ne 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, ~ 993, ~ 994~.4 Rigor ant] 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 clo not help. The current environment for
engineering education tends not to foster either good teaching or
effective learning. It is generally recognized that to(iay'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.
OCR for page 26
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 mentorin~. counselings and nur
THE "CLASSICAL"
ENGINEERING EDUCATION:
METHODOLOGICAL
PROS AND CONS
In terms of methodology and technol-
ogy, the classical engineering educa-
tion consists of a teacher, blackboard,
textbook, homework, and laboratory.
The advantages of classical education
are
· compulsion;
· credit;
· some adaptivity and
customization;
· moderate attention factor;
· some interactivity;
· shared experience-friendship
and misery;
· side channels and personal
elements jokes, etc. ;and
. .
· continuity.
The disadvantages of classical
education are
· it is paced to least common
denominator,
· variability of teachers,
· it is often bonny or poorly
prepared,
it is only moderately adaptive,
modest use of graphics and visual
material,
teachers are often unprepared or
unavailable for new subjects,
laboratories are often obsolete and
too expensive,
blackboard handwriting is slow,
and
textbooks are often insufficiently
explanatory.
.
1 ~ = ~ ~ ---<= ~ ~ ~
Turing that many students need. Most engineering fac-
ulty know little about how students learn; research on the
cognitive processes of learning is relatively new Verv
r · · r at.
_ c~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ _ ~ A ~
rew engineering faculty possess any knowledge of this
field. Yet it may hold promise for improving teaching
and learning.
For example, many believe that highly participatory
"active learning" methods are more effective for stimu-
lating student interest ant! learning. One approach now
coming into greater use is "cooperative learning," an
instructional method that involves students working in
teams to accomplish a common goal, uncler conditions
that involve both positive interdependence (all members
must cooperate to complete the task) and group account-
ability (each member is accountable for the entire final
outcome). Inquiry laboratories, seminars taught by teams
of teachers, and project-centered classes are other active
learning strategies. Most emphasize teamwork which
emulates the way engineering is actually practiced as
opposed to the education of individual performers, which
has been the traditional approach of engineering eciuca-
t~on.
The importance of teamwork as a vital component of
engineering, whether in the classroom or in practice, can
be dramatically enhanced by faculty teamwork in the
delivery of education. The single-instructor classroom
has its place, but team-teaching and shared responsibili-
ties for course and curriculum development set an im-
portant example. Such team-oriented methods tent!
through competition, cooperation, synergy, and peer
pressure to produce better teaching.
Nothing has been found that can replace strong,
supportive, one-on-one interaction between a student
and a faculty member. But many new educational tech-
nologies offer the possibility of making the delivery of
engineering e(lucation more effective, more efficient,
and more interesting. The potential for use of such
OCR for page 27
ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY
. .
27
technologies is growing ranidlv but is still largely untappecl. (The
<_7 ~ I ~
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 increase(1 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 handheld computer notepads herald an even
more exciting range of opportunities. Seconcl, 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 unclergraduate
courses, given budget constraints and the increasing pressure on
faculty to focus on securing research grants ant! 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-
garcling the roles of women and minorities (NRC, 19881.
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.
DlVQ[SIq 0' Students ond Fondue
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 198Os while the U.S. minority
population grew by 35 percent, the white, non-Hispanic population
grew only 2 percent (Vetter, ~ 9921. At the same time, the number of
OCR for page 28
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
FIGURE 3-1 Engineering
B.S. degrees, by race or eth-
nicity and residency status, lo coo
selected years, 1977-1990
(National Science Foundation,
1992, p. 64).
20,000
O
6,000
5,000 -
4,000
3'ooo 1
2,000 -
FIGURE 3-2 Engineering
B.S. degrees to members of
racial and ethnic minorities, mono
selected years, 1977-1990
(National Science Foundation,
1992, p. 64).
{I
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
o
28
ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM
· White (non-Hispanic)
O Asian
Black, Hispanic, Native American
[I Non-resident alien
Asian
I Black (non-Hispanic)
Hispanic
~ Native American
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
white males achieving engineering degrees has declined sharply
(Figure 3- ~ ).
The number of racial and ethnic minority students receiving
degrees in engineering increased somewhat (luring the ~ 980s (Figure
3-2), while the number of women decliner! 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. Toclay, 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 ~ percent
of such degrees (NSF, 19921. Retention (the completion of a full
academic program) is a special problem for minority students in
engineering educations they represent more than 15 percent of first-
year engineering students, but, as Figure 3-4 shows, more than half
OCR for page 29
ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY
29
9,000
7,000
6,OOO -
5,000 +
4,000
3 coo --t
FIGURE 3-3 Engineering
B.S. degrees to women, by ~ coo
race or ethnicity and residency
status, selected years, 1977- ~ coo t
1990 (National Science Foun
cation, 1992, p. 64).
90
80 .4
70
+
60
_ 50 ~
_ ~
~ an !
l
- 40
FIGURE 3-4 Representation30 i-|
of minority and nonminori-~
ty groups in undergraduate20 -ill
engineering education and~ O ~
their representation in cot-|
lege age population, 1990-°
1991 (Campbell, 1992b).
· White (non-Hispanic)
O Asian
Black (non-Hispanic)
~ Hispanic
EM Native American
~ Non-resident alien
~ -!-~ =1~P ~ ~
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
Ill
~ ~ ~1~' ~ ~,!
i i , _ _j ~] i
Nonminority Minority All Women Nonminority Minority All Men
Women Women Men Men
1
% of College Age Population
O % of Engineering Freshmen
O % of Total Engineering Enrollment
~ % of Engineering Graduates
drop out or switch to another major. For example (see Figure 3-4),
minority men make up about ~ 2 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
anti 45 percent for Hispanics, compared with roughly 65 percent for
all freshmen anti nearly 100 percent for Asians (bearing in mind that
retention figures probably err on the high side). Anecdotal evidence
suggests that the leacling research universities are experiencing reten-
tion rates for minorities that are even lower than average.
The negative factors in engineering education (lescribe(1 in previous
sections appear to be magnified for women and minority students,5
SThe 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.
OCR for page 30
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 unclergracluate engineering education (Carmichael and
Sevenair, ~99~). Persistent anecdotal evidence points to discrimina-
tion- mostly unintentional or cultural but occasionally intentional-
against unclerrepresented 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 anti 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-! 2 preparation later in
this chapter.
Most engineering faculties today remain bastions of white mates,
despite the changing demographics of their students and the even
more rapi(lly 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 baser! on race, gentler, and ethnic background;
· diversity of background in engineering practice, including de-
sign and management in industry and government; and
· (liversity of academic background and orientation towardteach-
ing, research, and professional practice.
Faculty characteristics (lo 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.
OCR for page 31
ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY 3 1
with the composition of the society that is served by the practice of
. .
englneerlng.
F~{UItY Rower. System
In engineering, ant! indeed across all academic disciplines, there is
concern that the reward systems by which faculty performance is
evaluated produce incentives that often react 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, anct
government. in effect, they may place a penalty on activities such as
curriculum development, interactions with industry, outreach to
precollege students, student advising, professional cle-
velopment, and other professorial functions designed to
foster a more integrated academic community and a
more well-rounded educational experience.
Nationwide, perhaps the most controversial aspect of
the faculty reward system is the overemphasis on re-
search at the expense of undergraduate teaching, which
is seen at most schools to varying degrees.7 While
teaching usually has a prominent place in formal state-
ments of faculty review criteria, it is often weighted
lightly in faculty review processes. "Buying out" of
teaching obligations with research dollars (being ex-
cusec! from teaching to conduct funcled 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 shouict 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 funcls, 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
"There is no fundamental dichotomy
between research and teaching.
Indeed, many would hold that good
teaching over a career which spans 3-
4 generations of new technology is
impossible for one not engaged in
research."
John J. McCoy,
Dean of Engineering,
The Catholic University of America
Personal communication to BEEd,
March 28, 1994
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).
OCR for page 32
32
ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM
criterion to measure. Academe has developed accepted methods for
evaluating the quality of research but has not cleveloped comparable
methocIs for evaluating teaching and professional service.
Recognition of this situation and its implications is growing. Many
institutions are attempting to devise en c! 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 Awarc! 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 ant! 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 wicier range of effective teaching assessment and evaluation meth-
ocis 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.
FlQXIbilltY end adoptability
Engineering education tennis to be conservative in both its peda-
gogical methods (inclucling curriculum) and its institutionalized
attitu(les.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
Perhaps the historical root of this conservatism is the responsibility for ensuring
that engineering designs function safely and reliably.
OCR for page 33
ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY
33
sis on the production of engineering researchers, who compete for
increasingly limited resources, at the expense of engineers advancing
,1 ~· ~ ~
~ 4=
me stale of engineering practice-especially in manufacturing and
construction, where the need is great (White, 19911.
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, 19941. 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, 19941.
a Hew COlIQGl6IltY
COLLEGIALITY AND TEACHING
In a study of conditions within
departments at 20 colleges and
universities, Massy et al. (1994) found
a high degree of collegiality being
practiced in those "exemplary depart-
ments" that actively support under-
graduate education. The distinctive
characteristics of this collegiality
include an emphasis on teaching,
frequent interaction, tolerance of
differences, generational and workload
equity, peer evaluation, and consensus
decision making. Collegial organiza-
tions, the authors stated, emphasize
consensus, shared power, consultation,
and collective responsibilities; they
are communities in which status
differences are de-emphasized and
individuals interact as equals.
K-12 Preporetlon
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-WorId
War T} era in engineering schools, this collegiality has
tended to be eroded by trends such as larger institutional
size; competitive grantsmanship; a loss of clarity about
the role of engineering; and a narrower focus on the
individual's social, political, ant! research interests (see
Kerr, 1994, for example). A new collegiality in engineer-
ing departments and schools which the BEEd believes
is a vital element of responsible "institutional citizen-
ship"-is essential if the actions and objectives of engi-
neering education (e.g., the evaluation of teaching qual-
ity and curriculum renewal) are to be achieved. The new
collegiality will be enhanced through organizing intro-
ductory courses, through professors lecturing in each
other's courses not only within departments and the
engineering school but across the entire university-,
and through including material in one's course that is
outside one's field (necessitating collegial help), along
with team teaching and peer evaluation of teaching.
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
OCR for page 34
34
ENGINEERING EDUCATION: DESIGNING AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM
school (K-! 2), is not producing a sufficient flow of students who are
informe(1 about engineering anti 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, anti many young students
do not obtain the knowledge and capabilities they need. In many
cases, both female and minority students are being told (whether
clirectly or inclirectly) 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) tent! 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 NationAtRisk more than a decade ago
(U.S. Department of Education, ~ 983), it has been widely acknowI-
eciged that U.S. secondary school students have fallen behind their
counterparts in most other inclustrializec! nations in their knowledge
of science and mathematics. Although average mathematics and
science test scores in national assessments improved slightly cluring
the 1980s, they are still well below those seen in the 1960s (National
Science Board, 1991, p.141. Quantitative reasoning and problem-
solving skills are particularly lacking, even in students who score
well on standardize<] exams.
Inaclequate 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
unclerrepresentect minority groups, who lag their majority counter-
parts (anc! 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
OCR for page 35
ENGINEERING EDUCATION TODAY
35
stucly of science curricula and has completed a science curricu-
lum guide for gracles 6-12 (NSTA, 19931.
The NSF has established both a Statewide Strategic Initiative (in
21 states) ant! 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 Unclergracluate Education of the NSF is manag-
ing ColIaboratives 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, 199Oa, b) has
.
issued several reports on mathematics curricula and teaching
practices and has issued draft standards for K-!2 science educa-
tion (NRC, ~ 994), which will be released in ~ 995 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" provicle(1 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 fecleral government is
spending $955.43 ~ million on science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology education at the precollege level in fiscal year ~ 994. (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-
larly effective. Some ideas:
· Bring demonstrations to middle
schools (e.g., a solar car team).
· Bring middle and high school
students to campus, where college
students can demonstrate equipment.
· Give college students credit for
mentoring activities in working with
middle~igh school students."
G. Wayne Clough,
President,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Personal communication to the BEEd,
February 28, 1994
ics and science preparedness of students lies with the
elementary and secondary schools. Together with par-
ents, it is their responsibility to develop talent, encourage
interest, and ensure that students persevere with math
ant! science courses. Schools that fad! to offer the neces-
sary courses, or that eliminate potentially capable stu-
clents by applying rigid criteria that clo not allow for
individual variation in abilities or background, restrict
access unnecessarily. Teachers who are poorly prepared
to communicate the attractions of science and engineer-
ing as careers also limit the potential talent pool. It is
important for elementary and secondary school teachers
to understand what engineering is (as distinct from
science), so that they can advise and encourage potential
. .
engineering students.
