1 / 28

Educating Engineers for the 21st Century: The Role of Engineering Education and Accreditation

Educating Engineers for the 21st Century: The Role of Engineering Education and Accreditation.

thersa
Download Presentation

Educating Engineers for the 21st Century: The Role of Engineering Education and Accreditation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Educating Engineers for the 21st Century:The Role of Engineering Education and Accreditation John W. PradosVice President Emeritus and University ProfessorThe University of Tennessee419 Dougherty Engineering BuildingKnoxville, TN 37996-2200(865) 974-6053; Fax: (865) 974-7076E-Mail: jprados@utk.edu

  2. Engineering Education 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

  3. U.S. Engineering Education Roots in France to 1862(Courtesy of Dr. Joseph Bordogna, with modifications) 1676 Corps du génie organized in the French Army - Louis XIV 1794 École Polytechnique established to train engineering officers, with curriculum based in mathematics and science - Napoleon 1794 U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York - G. Washington 1817 First engineering curriculum at West Point modeled after École Polytechnique - S. Thayer 1821 First civilian engineering course in the U.S. at Norwich Academy, Vermont 1835 First engineering degrees, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, NY 1860 Fewer than 10 engineering schools established in U.S. 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act fostered engineering school growth

  4. U.S. Engineering Education: 1862-1945(B.E. Seely, Journal of Engineering Education, July 1999) <1880 Majority of engineers trained through apprenticeship; schools emphasized hands-on experience in field, shop, and foundry 1880’s Engineering school “shop culture” begins to give way to “school culture” (e.g., R. Thurston at Cornell), but strong hands-on emphasis continues;new disciplines emerge: Electrical - MIT (1882); Chemical- U of Illinois (1885) 1893 SPEE (now ASEE) founded 1907 Wyoming law requires licensing of engineers 1920s Great “engineering theorists” from Europe arrive: S. Timoshenko (Russia), T. von Kármán (Hungary), H. Westergaard (Denmark) 1932 ECPD (now ABET) established by AIChE, AIEE, AIME, ASCE, ASME, NSPE, NCEE, and SPEE; begins accreditation of engineering programs in 1936

  5. U.S. Engineering Education: 1945-(B.E. Seely, Journal of Engineering Education, July 1999) >1945 Federal government begins large-scale funding of research at universities; key engineering education leaders move to strengthen mathematical and scientific focus of engineering education (e.g., F. E. Terman at Stanford, S. C. Hollister at Cornell, E. A. Walker at Penn State, C. R. Soderberg at MIT) 1955 “Grinter Report” calls for increased emphasis on engineering science; engineering design; humanities and social sciences; but, final version drops recommendation that most schools also offer practice-oriented, “professional-general” programs >1960 Most engineering schools offer only “professional-scientific” programs; employ faculty on basis of academic research potential, not experience as practitioners 1980-? Increasing calls by employers for a new engineering education paradigm that balances strong technical base with integrative, contextual, teamwork, communication skills, etc.

  6. Imperative for Reform: Challenges to 21st Century Engineers • Major driver for engineering employment has shifted from defense to global competition; focus on time-to-market, cost, quality, customer orientation. • Intelligent technologies offer opportunities to be more creative, “work smarter;” can revolutionize learning. • Constantly-changing work environment calls for astute interpersonal skills; employment opportunities shifting to smaller firms, non-traditional areas. • Massively integrated populations, place environment, health, and safety at the front end of design; zero discharge, life-cycle costs, social and political concerns change the classical economic balance.

  7. The Ideal 21st Century Engineering Skills Essential for a Competitive Enterprise • Strong technical capability • Skills in communication and persuasion • Ability to lead and work effectively as a member of a 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

  8. The Reality ? 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

  9. Broad Agreement on the Need for Change • Multiple reports over the past 10-15 years show remarkable consistency in the attributes needed in 21st Century engineering graduates and in the need for a new educational paradigm to develop these attributes. • There is also broad agreement that systemic reform of engineering education will require a concurrent change from the predominant engineering school culture based on compartmentalization of knowledge, individual specialization, and a wholly research-based reward structure to one that values integration as well as specialization, teamwork as well as individual achievement, and educational research and innovation as well as research in the engineering sciences.

  10. 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 • Broad use of information technology • Faculty devoted to developing emerging professionals as mentors and coaches, rather than as all-knowing dispensers of information • An impossible dream?

  11. So Why Doesn’t It Happen? • 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. • At some institutions, industry collaboration is frowned upon; at others, remote location makes such collaboration difficult.

  12. Forces for Change • Engineering college and departmental advisory boards • Engineering professional societies, for example: • American Society for Engineering Education Engineering (ASEE) • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Education (IEEE) Education Society • Private foundations, for example, the F. W. Olin Foundation (Olin College); the Lemelson Foundation (National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance) • The National Science Foundation • The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) • Information technology and cognitive science (enablers)

  13. Meaning and Characteristics of Accreditation • Educational quality control in the US takes place through the process of accreditation. • Reflects a professional judgment that certain standards of educational quality are met. • Tells prospective students and the public that graduates have achieved a certain minimum level of competence in their fields of study. • Acts as a form of consumer protection. • Accreditation is: • Voluntary. • Non-Governmental. • Conducted through a peer review process.

  14. Kinds of Accreditation • INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION seeks to assess the overall operation of a college or university from a broad perspective. • SPECIALIZED ACCREDITATION focuses in detail on specific programs that educate students for professions (law, medicine, architecture, engineering, etc.).

  15. Engineering Programs • Accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission(EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). • ABET is recognized by the U.S. Office of Education to accredit Engineering and Engineering Technology programs in the United States.

  16. The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET) • ABET is an association of 31 professional societies. It conducts a program of voluntary accreditation based on a peer-review process for programs in engineering, engineering technology, and engineering-related fields at U.S. colleges and universities. • Currently ABET accredits approximately: • 1740 engineering programs at 350 institutions. • 680 engineering technology programs at 225 institutions (2-year and 4-year). • 70 applied science programs at 50 institutions • 215 computer/info. science/tech programs at 195 institutions • Accreditation information is provided through a self-study by the institution and a report of an on-site review team. • 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?)

  17. Accreditation Policies • ABET accredits engineering programs, not departments or schools. • ABET requires that the program name include the word engineering to be accredited as an engineering program. • Accreditation information is provided through a self-study by the institution and a report of an on-site review team. • Accreditation decisions are based on published criteria.

  18. Accreditation Process • Institution requests that ABET evaluate its engineering program(s); prepares self-study. • EAC forms a team of professional peers from industry and education to conduct the evaluation. • Team reviews self-study and conducts a 2-day visit to the institution. • Team prepares a preliminary report of findings and submits to the institution for comment. • EAC reviews team’s report and the institution’s comments and votes an accreditation action for each program reviewed.

  19. Possible Accreditation Actions Good • NGR (Next General Review): Program accredited until Next General Review (maximum 6 years). • IR (Interim Report): Accredit for limited term; extend to NGR if Report demonstrates correction of specified deficiencies. • IV (Interim Visit): Accredit for limited term; extend to NGR if Visit demonstrates correction of specified deficiencies. Bad • SC (Show Cause): Reaccredit for limited term; extend only if institution can show why accreditation should not be removed; visit must demonstrate correction of serious deficiencies. • NA (Not to Accredit): Denial of accreditation to new program or program already on Show Cause; serious deficiencies (still) exist.

  20. ABET Support for Innovation An early statement of the ECPD Council was: “(ECPD) has no authority to impose restrictions or standardizations upon engineering colleges, nor does it desire to do so.” This statement is echoed in current accreditation criteria.

  21. ABET Problem - Overly Prescriptive Criteria(Courtesy of Dr. Edward A. Parrish, former EAC Chair)

  22. Other ABET Problems • Accreditation process was long and complex; reports received 3 levels of inspection (still had defects); excessive time demands on ABET volunteers and schools preparing for accreditation. • It was difficult to attract technically-active, mid-career professionals from industry and research universities to leadership roles in accreditation (too much time demand and too much bean-counting). • Traditional criteria did not encourage the integrative, team-oriented, engineering education paradigm that employers increasingly advocate -- often used as an excuse for inertia -- “ABET won’t let us…”

  23. ABET On The Move • With NSF and industry support, ABET held three consensus-building workshops in 1994, dealing with three major issues: Criteria, Process, and Participation. • In the following years with strong industry input, ABET developed outcomes-based Criteria 2000, which emphasize: • Publicly stated, measurable objectivesbased on needs of the program’s constituencies (expected achievements of graduates during early years of practice) • ABET-defined outcomes for engineering education (what students can do at the time of graduation) • Institutional processes to evaluate the achievement of objectives and outcomes; use results for continuous improvementof the educational processes • ABET review under Criteria 2000 focuses on consistency of objectives with the specified goals and effectiveness of the continuous improvement process.

  24. Most Important • 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 will, of necessity, expose students to concepts of continuous improvement.

  25. Implementation Challenges(Courtesy of Dr. Ira Jacobson, former EAC Chair) • Some advantages of EC 2000 • Graduates better prepared for 21st century practice • More constituent involvement • Program differentiation • Innovation (harder to say “ABET won’t let us…”) • Accountability to constituents • Some difficulties with EC 2000 • Uncertainty; no existing models in engineering • Self-evaluation and continuous improvement are foreign to academic culture • Evaluator training is critical - must exercise superior professional judgment (but more rewarding?) • Additional effort to implement - but once process is functioning, ABET data should be available routinely

  26. Traditional Curricular Change Process • Incremental – usually look at only one subject area at a time • Focused almost wholly on content – add new material (painless), sometimes delete old material (painful), and agonize over whether or not to increase the total hour requirements • Based on commonly accepted assumptions: • The goal of the curriculum is to “cover the material,” i.e., to transmit a designated body on knowledge and set of tools to the students • This goal can be accomplished through lectures, supplemented by a limited number of laboratory experiences and occasional group project work, usually confined to engineering laboratories and capstone design experience • Does NOT lead to a new educational paradigm.

  27. Holistic 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 • 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)

  28. Closing Thought “ABET must set high standards for the effectiveness of institutional processes, and not all programs will be able to meet them. However, in the final analysis, ABET’s role is no different from that of a truly dedicated faculty member -- to set high standards and then do everything in his or her power to help students achieve them!” “Editor’s Page,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 86, April 1997, pp. 70-71

More Related