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

1
Educating Engineers for a Global Profession
Commodity 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 [phone]E-Mail jprados_at_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 Todays
  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.
• Editors 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 its really innovative, well 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 didnt, 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.