Educating Engineers for a Global Profession Commodity or Source of Competitive Advantage?

1. Educating Engineers for a Global ProfessionCommodity or Source of Competitive Advantage? John W. PradosVice President Emeritus and University ProfessorThe University of Tennessee419 Dougherty Engineering BuildingKnoxville, TN 37996-2200(423) 974-6053; Fax: (423) 974-7076E-Mail: jprados@utk.edu

2. Challenges to the 21st Century Engineering Graduate • A major driver for your employment has shifted from cold war defense needs to commercial competition, with intense focus on time-to-market, cost, quality, customer orientation. • Your employer is likely to view its engineering work force as a cost center, not a source of competitive advantage. • Your work environment is constantly changing and demands astute interpersonal skills, including the ability to lead and/or be a contributing member of a team. • The success of your projects will depend at least as much on economic, environmental, social, and political considerations as on technical ones. • You are in full-time competition with high-quality, low-cost engineering services from China, Eastern Europe, India, etc.

3. The Offshoring Challenge • Offshoring of jobs is not new, but until recently was limited to relatively low-skilled manufacturing work. • Widely available, high-speed electronic communication now allows employers to obtain highly skilled engineering and related services from almost anywhere in the world in real time • A number of well-known U.S. technology firms, e.g., Microsoft, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Dell – and consulting and financial service firms, e.g., Accenture, Citicorp, J. P. Morgan Chase, are outsourcing a significant number of highly skilled jobs to China and India, with the rate increasing.

4. Challenges to the 21st Century Engineering Educator • Educate outsource-proof engineers – who will not be commodities, but rather an obvious source of competitive advantage to their employers. • Develop innovative technical leaders – who will create and manage the technologies of the future. • Instill a spirit of entrepreneurship in its broadest sense – not limited to startup of new businesses, but including recognition of opportunities for business development within existing organizations. • Maintain a sound base of technical skills (which is all most of us were educated for in the first place!)

5. The Changing Paradigms • Pre-1950: Focus on engineering practice; design according to codes and well-defined procedures; limited use of mathematics; many faculty with industrial experience and/or strong ties with industry • 1950-1990: Focus on engineering sciences; fundamental understanding of phenomena; analysis; majority of faculty trained for academic research • 1990-?: Focus on teamwork, communication, integration, design, manufacturing, continuous improvement; maintain analytic strength

6. A Vision of the 21st Century Engineer Engineering Skills Essential for a Globally Competitive Enterprise • Strong technical capability • Skills in communication and persuasion • Ability to lead and work effectively as a member of a multidisciplinary team • Understanding of the non-technical forces that profoundly influence engineering decisions (“Engineering is design under constraint.” -- NAE President William Wulf) • Commitment to lifelong learning

7. The Reality Today? Employer Perceptions of Weaknesses in Today’s Engineering Graduates (Todd et al.) • Technical arrogance • No understanding of manufacturing processes • Lack of design capability or creativity • Lack of appreciation for considering alternatives • All want to be analysts • Narrow view of engineering and related disciplines • No understanding of the quality process • Weak communication skills • Little skill or experience in working in teams

8. A Vision of the New Engineering Education Paradigm, Characterized By: • Active, project-based learning • Integrated development of mathematical and scientific concepts in the context of application • Close interaction with industry • Multidisciplinary team experiences • Broad use of information technology • Faculty devoted to developing emerging professionals as mentors and coaches, rather than as all-knowing dispensers of information

9. Why Is this Vision Not Widespread? • Academic institutions, by centuries-old tradition, are slow to change. • Faculty governance process often talks proposed changes to death. • Educational tradition in the U.S. is teacher-centered, not learner centered. • Strong culture focused on individual, specialized achievement inhibits faculty collaboration, especially across disciplinary boundaries. • Faculty reward system and funding patterns in research universities discourage the investment of significant faculty time in educational innovation.

10. So Where Do We Begin? • Understand clearly that engineering is different from science and requires different educational strategies. • Question the usual assumptions (myths) about curriculum development. • Recognize that engineering education is, itself, an academic discipline and draw on its growing scholarship. • Seek education-industry-government partnerships with those who share the goal of better-prepared engineering graduates.

11. How Does Engineering Differ from Science? The goal of science is knowledge, an understanding of the universe in which we live. The goal of engineering is to create a device, system, or process to satisfy a human need. The engineer may make extensive calculations based on mathematical and scientific principles, but the purpose of these is not to gain better understanding of the principles; it is to obtain information on which to base a decision. In the absence of adequate theory, the engineer may conduct experiments with a model or prototype of the system under development, but the purpose of these experiments is not to increase scientific understanding; it is to develop confidence that the device or system will function as desired under expected conditions of use. “Editor’s Page,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 86, January 1997, pp. 70-71

12. A More Concise Statement “The scientist seeks to understand what is; the engineer seeks to create what never was.” -- Theodore von Kármán

13. Engineering Curriculum Development: The Usual Assumptions • The goal of the curriculum is to “cover the material,” i.e., to transmit a defined body of knowledge to the students. • The critical issue is content – we can add new material (painless), sometimes delete old material (painful), and agonize over whether or not to increase the total hour requirements. • Curricular change should be accomplished incrementally – one subject at a time. • We could really do a great job in five (or six) years! • And if it’s really innovative, we’ll lose our accreditation!

14. Questioning the Assumptions • The goal of formal engineering education should be to develop an “engineering” way of thinking – how to formulate, analyze, and solve technical problems subject to realistic constraints, and how to find and evaluate the information one needs for this process. Much as we hate to admit it, the actual subject matter (in particular, MY COURSE) is of secondary importance. • It may take more than four years to develop the engineering mode of thought, but the length of the program should be the product of a careful analysis of learning outcomes and experiences, not the starting point. A good engineer never stops learning!

15. Accreditation -- ABET, Inc.(formerly Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology) • ABET is an association of professional societies. It conducts a program of voluntary accreditation based on a peer-review process for programs in engineering, engineering technology, applied science, and computer science & information technology. • Currently ABET accredits approximately: • 1750 engineering programs at 350 institutions. • 680 engineering technology programs at 225 institutions (2-year and 4-year). • 70 applied science programs at 50 institutions. • 210 computer science and information technology programs at 190 institutions. • ABET is now changing the focus of its accreditation criteria from “inputs” (subject and credit hour requirements) to “outcomes” (what have students learned, and how can you tell?) – EC 2000

16. EC 2000 Program Outcomes Require an Educational Paradigm for Competitiveness Programs must demonstrate that their graduates have the • ability to apply knowledge of math, science, and engineering • ability to design and conduct experiments and interpret data • ability to design a system, component, or process to meet needs • ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams • ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems • understanding of professional and ethical responsibility and the impact of engineering solutions in a global/social context • ability to communicate effectively • motivation and ability to engage in lifelong learning • knowledge of contemporary issues • ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice

17. EC 2000 Curricular Change Process Based on Continuous Improvement • Develop list of measurable learning outcomes for the program • Develop list of measurable learning outcomes for each required educational experience • Examine matrix of program learning outcomes vs. educational experience learning outcomes • Modify required educational experiences to assure that all program learning outcomes are adequately supported; may require changes in curriculum, course content, and/or learning strategies – this should define the length of the curriculum. • Establish a regular process to review results from measured achievement of program learning outcomes and to modify required educational experiences in areas of weakness • Establish a process for periodic review of program learning outcomes by external constituencies (e.g., advisory board)

18. Where This Should Take Us • The underlying philosophy of the EC 2000 accreditation process is continuous improvement. • Long-term survival of any enterprise today, be it manufacturing, service, or even education, demands a commitment to continuous improvement. • An educational experience that satisfies EC 2000 should, by its nature, expose students to concepts of continuous improvement.

19. Engineering Education Literature • For more than 100 years, the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) has published periodicals dealing with engineering education; currently it publishes: • ASEE Prism • Journal of Engineering Education • Over the years other engineering education periodicals have appeared, for example: • IEEE Transactions on Education • International Journal of Engineering Education • European Journal of Engineering Education • Etc.

20. Higher Standards of Scholarship • The early engineering education literature covered a wide variety of subjects, but usually lacked scholarly rigor; many papers dealt with “classroom tips and tricks” and the data analysis was limited to “The students liked it, and so did I.” (If they didn’t, it was not published.) • More recently, standards of scholarship have increased. Papers include careful literature reviews, draw on learning theories from cognitive science, and base conclusions on careful statistical analysis of adequate data – a sounder basis for deciding “what works.”

21. Growing Resources for Engineering Education Scholarship • NSF and a limited number of universities now support centers for scholarship on engineering education. • NAE has recently established a Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE) • CASEE has established a web portal called the Annals of Research in Engineering Education, http://www.areeonline.org/, containing summaries of engineering education research and reflective essays on these research experiences. • Perhaps most important, a community of engineering education scholars is growing.

22. Seeking Partnerships • Project-based engineering education based on real-world problems, pioneered at Harvey Mudd College (Claremont, California) and now implemented at a limited number of institutions in the U.S. (most recently, the new F. W. Olin College of Engineering) is a powerful feature of the new paradigm. However, it is faculty labor intensive and not consistent with traditional academic culture and reward systems. • National laboratories, government agencies (e.g., NSF, DOE) and private foundations (e.g., NCIIA) provide valuable opportunities for undergraduate research and innovation experiences. • Partnerships with engineering employers (industrial, governmental, and non-profit) are needed to provide the expertise and exposure to real-world constraints for an effective project experience.

23. What Do We Tell Our Students and Our Children? • Study and work hard (Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century, 2005) • Old days: “Eat your peas – kids in China and India are starving.” • Today: “Do your homework – kids in China and India are hungry for your jobs.” • Look for an engineering school with a project-based curriculum (Olin, Harvey Mudd, WPI – expensive) • Ask about project experiences at any school you consider and seek out project courses, courses on innovation, undergraduate research experiences, and internship opportunities • Think globally – learn languages, travel, build networks

24. Concluding Thought The world is flat, but jobs that require engineers who can create, innovate, and integrate technical and non-technical constraints will be hard to offshore.