|
For presentation at the 1998 ASCE Boston Convention,
18-21 October 1998
Civil Engineering Education in the 21st
Century
by Walter P. Moore, Jr., Jose M. Roesset, and James
T. P. Yao
Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX 77843-3136.
INTRODUCTION
Civil Engineers are problem-solvers who seek solutions
to benefit society through (1) reduction and remediation of air,
ground, and water pollution, (2) analysis-design-construction of
facilities to meet societal needs, (3) repair-replacement of deteriorating
and/or damaged infrastructure systems, (4) improvement of congested
transportation systems, (5) practical, alternative energy sources,
and (6) mitigation of natural disasters such as floods, windstorms,
and earthquakes. Civil engineering projects include bridges, buildings,
and intelligent structures; power plants, offshore and ocean structures,
space structures and launching pads; ports, harbors, and navigational
channels; tunnels and underground openings, pipelines, highways,
railroads, airports, and other transportation systems; dams, aqueducts,
solid waste disposal plants, waste water treatment, and hazardous
waste disposal facilities. These projects involve interplay among
technical, government, legal, financial and social elements. The
primary goal is to serve the public better in terms of health, safety,
welfare, and sustainability. Each civil engineering project is unique,
constructed as an entity. Every project receives individual planning,
investigation, design, construction, and performance monitoring.
Because of the desired broad base in undergraduate education and
the necessity of specialized education in practice, the American
Society of Civil Engineers has been advocating for a post-baccalaureate
professional degree as the entry level or professional practice
since its 1995 education conference (ASCE, 1995; Russell and Yao,
1996).
Engineering education, and particularly undergraduate
education, has been a subject of concern during the last 30 years,
notably at some institutions that foresaw the changes that were
going to take place both in technology and in society. It has received
more widespread and intensified attention in the last 10 years.
The rapid and continuous improvements in computer technology, leading
on one hand to increased computational power and to the general
availability of a plethora of analysis and design software packages
for all kinds of applications, and on the other to the potential
for almost instantaneous communications around the world, have resulted
in the possibility of having design teams constituted by engineers
located in several different countries, transmitting their products
electronically to a central location. The increasingly global nature
of the economy has further facilitated the internationalization
of the engineering services provided by many large corporations.
All of this has led to significant changes in the role that an engineer,
and in particular, a graduate of a U.S. University can play or is
expected to play as a professional.
Industry, government and academia have all made
clear during the last few years the need for engineers who have
not only in-depth knowledge of physics, mathematics, advanced analysis
procedures, and specific technical subjects, but who also can communicate
effectively, participate in team work with a variety of other specialists,
lead interdisciplinary project teams and have a good understanding
of the legal, political and social implications of large engineering
projects. A number of committees and workshops created by the National
Academy of Engineering, the National Science Foundation, professional
organizations and academic institutions have come up with essentially
identical recommendations in this respect.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has organized
specialty conferences on engineering education for more than three
decades. Results of the 1995 civil engineering education conference
were summarized in a short report (ASCE, 1995). A discussion paper
with a suggested civil engineering curriculum was distributed for
comments to interested people in universities, practice, and government.
Approximately 35 responses were received, some contradictory to
others. Some reiterated the same points. However, all of these discussions
are valuable as they represented different viewpoints (several respondents
were practicing engineers outside the civil engineering profession).
These answers were then summarized and made available on the Internet
(http://lohman.tamu.edu). This represents an isolated and small
effort to stimulate actions in response to the recommendations of
the various conferences. The organization of this session at the
Annual Convention is another attempt to generate more specific actions
towards the implementation of an appropriate civil engineering curriculum
for the 21st century. Representatives of academia, government
and industry will present papers from their perspective. A general
discussion will follow these presentations. The purpose of this
introductory paper is to review some of the work that has been done
in undergraduate education and some of the recommendations that
have been made, then to ask several specific questions that should
be openly addressed before we embark in any major changes.
EDUCATION INITIATIVES
A large number of new ideas and techniques for
engineering education have been tried during the past 30 years.
Some of them have addressed only the form in which the material
is delivered, while others have been concerned with the material
itself, the order of presentation of different topics and the duration
of the undergraduate degree. Few have addressed all of these issues.
Some of the techniques developed for education
have been short lived in spite of the fact that they were highly
publicized and reported as very successful, at least by the people
promoting them. Such, for instance, was the self study or Keller
plan of the late 60's and the early 70's that introduced clear improvements
over other standard forms of teaching. For example, the preparation
of well written notes points out the importance or relevance of
the material being covered as well as where it fits within the objectives
of the course. However, it would not survive on its own as a substitute
(rather than a complement) to more traditional approaches. A major
problem is that there are many different types of students and diverse
ways of learning. It is difficult therefore to find a technique
that is ideal for all. Some students rely primarily on visual memory
while others prefer listening. To some of them the process of copying
notes written on a blackboard provides a better experience than
just watching slides or transparencies. While there are students
who prefer to work independently, at their own pace, with some very
broad directions, others need much more mentoring and personal attention.
A second problem is that some new methods start
from the wrong assumption that teaching is purely the transmission
of information. Education is or should be primarily concerned with
teaching how to think rather than what to think, and as a logical
extension, how to formulate and solve all kinds of problems. There
is a certain amount of information that must be transmitted to the
student if we do not want to start from ground zero and force him/her
to reinvent the wheel. Transmitting this material effectively is
clearly important, but this is not enough. A third problem is that
the improvement in the quality of education and the reduction in
the cost of education are often presented as equivalent goals while
in many instances they are mutually exclusive. There is no doubt
that the recent technological developments particularly in the areas
of computers and multimedia can significantly improve the quality
of education complementing the existing as well as new methods of
teaching. It is not clear however that this can be accomplished
with a reduction in cost. It is sometimes stated that there will
be indeed a reduction because graduate students rather than faculty
members can do the mentoring. While some professors may be poor
educators and some graduate students may develop into excellent
teachers, a good professor with considerable experience will be
superior to a good graduate student, unless there is a fatalistic
law that states that a good graduate student will always continue
to deteriorate when he becomes a professor. Thus while replacing
professors by graduate students may introduce economies; it will
not necessarily improve quality.
Even if some educational innovations have failed
to be the cure-all they were touted to be, there have been several
programs that represent clear improvements. In the late 60's or
early 1970's, MIT introduced the Concourse program. In this program,
a selected number of incoming undergraduates would spend the first
one or two years as a group under the direct supervision of a small
number of faculty members, learning in a casual, interactive mode
about mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering applications,
and communications in an integrated format. As the need to acquire
new knowledge to solve a specific problem resulting from the formulation
of a physical or chemical model arose, a series of mathematics lectures
addressing that family of problems was inserted. The application
to an actual engineering case followed. The program seemed to be
highly successful according to the participating students and faculty
though it was expensive and required considerable dedication from
some of the best faculty members. It was never extended to reach
a large fraction of the freshman classes as far as we know.
Very similar programs are being established now,
almost 30 years later. One such program has been instituted under
support from the National Science Foundation at the University of
Maryland and was presented at the meeting of the Engineering Research
Centers in November 1997. The same idea has been implemented also
at Louisiana Tech starting in September 1997. It involves dedicated
and enthusiastic faculty known for their teaching ability. The students
involved are excited about the program and highly complimentary.
In particular, they greatly enjoy the following:
- The availability of the faculty members involved in the program
not only during the class times but also at any other time in
their offices. They believe that this is not the case with the
regular curriculum although there is no reason why it could not
be and one must suspect that those particular faculty members
would always be available irrespective of the program.
- The fact that they are a relatively small group (on the order
of 30 at Louisiana Tech) whereas the classes in the regular curriculum
are much larger. This again does not seem to be necessarily an
exclusive feature of the program.
- The sense of belonging and the special relationship with the
other members of the group resulting from the fact that they take
most of the classes together. This leads to teamwork encouraged
by the program.
- The ability to see immediately the practical usefulness and
application of the material learned instead of going for a whole
year learning abstract subjects without understanding why. This
is the result of the coordination between the material covered
in the Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Engineering Application
classes.
- The faster exposure to useful computer software to solve engineering
problems, the feeling that they are learning to use actual engineering
tools and the participation from the first year in a complete,
albeit small, engineering design project.
- The format of the classes with more interaction and participation
of the students (active learning) in addition to the traditional
lectures.
While all of these are valid and important points,
the ones that are specifically associated with the program are the
motivational advantage of seeing early the engineering application
of the material, the advantages of the coordination between subjects
and the student interaction/participation. Involving students in
an active way in the teaching/learning experience is far from new.
The traditional images of professors sitting under a tree or around
a fireplace with a circle of students to discuss different topics
with an open exchange of ideas, while not necessarily associated
with engineering courses, are not imaginary. This form of teaching
has been going on for a long time particularly in small institutions
and when dealing with small numbers of students. Yet the fact that
it is not new does not decrease its merits and importance. The active
participation of students in the class and the ability to discover
on their own are the basis of the active learning approach (also
known by a variety of other names) which has received significant
attention in the last 10 years. Active learning involves more demonstrations,
discussions and debates, use of computer programs and particularly
simulation programs, field experiences, laboratory demonstrations,
written exercises etc. than traditional courses. All of these help
to motivate the students, enhance the learning capability of a large
fraction of them, if not all, and improve interpersonal communication
skills.
With the ABET edict, all engineering curricula
require a capstone design course at the senior level. These design
courses are particularly well suited for active learning, teamwork
and integration of knowledge acquired in different disciplines.
There are eight national Engineering Education
Coalitions supported by the National Science Foundation. These Coalitions
consisting of more than half of the universities in this country
are intended to introduce innovations into the undergraduate engineering
curriculum. They are all working diligently to improve the way future
engineers are educated. Most of them are primarily concerned with
the development of a new undergraduate curriculum for the freshman
and sophomore years common to all engineering disciplines except
perhaps for one or two courses. The planning of a complete four-,
five-, or six-year curriculum for any given engineering career has
not yet been undertaken. As an example, the NSF Foundation Coalition
that includes Texas A&M University has established a freshman
curriculum emphasizing integration, technology, and teamwork. Now
the entire College of Engineering has implemented a common freshman
curriculum and there are attempts to extend it to the sophomore
year. However some engineering departments may not require all their
students to take the complete set of coalition courses and in order
to reach a compromise some engineering science courses have had
to be reorganized along traditional departmental lines. As an example,
a separate course on electrical systems had to be created.
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Boyer (1990) reviewed the role of scholarship in
U.S. universities and divided it into three overlapping phases.
The first phase began with colonial times when educators’ duties
were to prepare students to be civic or religious leaders. In the
mid-1800’s, the focus became service oriented and the emphases
were on the practical knowledge. We needed more efficient factories,
more productive agriculture, and service in the government. Since
the early 1900s, universities have been concentrating on producing
pure knowledge and thus basic research. The training of students
is no longer emphasized. He advocated broadening the definition
of scholarship by including the scholarships of integration, application,
and teaching in addition to that of discovery.
In re-emphasizing teaching, it is generally recognized
that lecture-only type of teaching style is no longer adequate.
One of the basic reasons is that student composition has changed.
For a long time, students were like their professors who could sit
and pay attention to the course materials for relatively long duration.
During the last two decades, most students can no longer concentrate
on the course material for more than 15 minutes. Therefore, active
or cooperative learning is becoming much more important where students
are more actively involved in a team environment.
Recently, Johnson et al. (1998) presented a good
summary of cooperative learning. In addition, they suggested how
to maximize instruction using this approach. Basically, cooperative
learning consists of the following five elements:
- Positive Interdependence – Each student believes that he/she
cannot learn unless the other members in the group have all learned
the material. This can be accomplished by adding joint rewards,
dividing resources, and assigning group members complementary
roles.
- Individual Accountability – Each student must understand
that he/she cannot let others do his/her work without completely
understanding it. This can be accomplished by testing students
individually, requiring students to explain the solutions to the
class, and observing each group in order to document the contributions
of each student.
- Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction – Group members must
help, support, and praise each other’s effort to learn. This
can be accomplished by requiring students to explain how they
solved problems, discussing the concept that they learned, and
connecting present with past learning. To make effective use of
face-to-face promotive interaction, the student group must be
small; say two to four members per group.
- Use of Teamwork Skills – Students must have interpersonal
and small group skills. Therefore, leadership, decision-making,
trust building, communication, and conflict management skills
must be taught in class.
- Group Processing – Students need to learn how to assess
their achievements in terms of their individual and group goals.
To accomplish it, instructors need to provide the necessary time
for this activity and to teach students how to analyze their learning
process.
Student groups can be organized into formal groups
(for teaching specific content), informal cooperative learning groups
(for active and meaningful reasoning), and cooperative base groups
(for long-term and committed relationships at least a semester in
duration). These groups complement one another and can all be used
in a single class. As an example, a class may start with a five-
to ten- minute base group meeting. The instructor then gives a short
lecture covering the topics. After the lecture, each formal cooperative
learning group is asked to deepen their understanding of the material.
The instructor then summarizes the most interesting ideas and conclusions
from the formal groups. At the end of the class, the base groups
meet again to review the material, discuss further applications,
look at homework assignments, and help other members as needed.
Johnson et al. (1998) concluded that cooperation
is a positive force for instructors and students alike. According
to these authors, cooperative learning should be practiced in every
class. In addition, instructors should cooperate collegially in
any instruction program. They recommend having two to five instructors
for each team working together to improve their skills in using
cooperative learning skills. These instructors should meet each
week to support and encourage one another. More detailed information
can be found in references such as Felder (1993) and Johnson et
al. (1991).
A POSSIBLE CIVIL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM
The main features that most reports consider necessary
in an engineering undergraduate curriculum are:
- A solid base in science (mathematics, physics and chemistry).
- A solid knowledge of engineering subjects involving both some
exposure to the different broad aspects of the particular engineering
discipline and a more in depth study of one or more areas within
that discipline.
- A good understanding of economics, risk and decision analysis
in the face of uncertainty and the socio-political aspects of
engineering projects.
- Skill in technical communications, involving not only oral and
written communications but also familiarity with the new multimedia
tools and techniques.
- An early exposure to practical engineering problems and in particular
engineering design with emphasis on the creative part.
- Increased exposure to the practice of engineering and contacts
with professional engineers.
- Increased participation of professional engineers in the education
process.
On the basis of these features and to stimulate
further discussion and action, an outline of a possible civil engineering
curriculum and the resulting discussions are made available on the
Internet (http:// lohman.tamu.edu).
Everybody agrees that the features outlined above
are all desirable. There is substantial disagreement however as
to their relative importance, the precise meaning of words such
as "solid base", "solid knowledge", "good
understanding", "skill", "exposure" or
"participation", and the extent to which they should be
implemented. While many educators feel that present curricula do
not put enough emphasis on basic science, there are many professionals
as well as engineering educators who feel that today’s coverage
of mathematics is sufficient and perhaps more than necessary in
engineering practice. Many are those who feel that it is important
for an engineer to be exposed to the full breadth of civil engineering.
They also would like to see a requirement of at least one course
in each sub-area (for civil engineers courses on structural analysis
and design, geotechnical engineering, hydraulics and water resources,
construction, transportation and environmental engineering) as part
of the curriculum. There are also many on the other hand who would
prefer to see more specialization even at the undergraduate level
feeling that environmental or transportation engineers have a reduced
level of need for knowledge of structures or soils or vice-versa.
Thus while there are several important efforts aimed at engineering
integration there are simultaneously clear movements towards the
splitting of some traditional disciplines, such as civil engineering,
into a number of entirely independent and disassociated careers.
The increased awareness of the importance of the civil infrastructure
(its development, monitoring and repair) should provide a rallying
point helping to unify the civil engineering profession. Yet at
this time even in the American Society of Civil Engineers, the number
of journals representative of different specialties is continuously
expanding and different groups (the Structural Engineering Institute
and the Geotechnical Institute have already been established and
several other institutes are being organized) are becoming independent
in order to strengthen their relations with other professions rather
than with other civil engineers.
Most, if not all, civil engineering curricula have
a course on engineering economics and a course on technical communications.
To some this is enough to satisfy the needs in these areas and perhaps
even too much. To others this is woefully insufficient. Many civil
engineering departments have had for some time professional engineers
teaching design courses or helping in the senior capstone design
course as adjunct professors. To some that is all that is necessary.
They believe that further exposure to the practice of the profession
should be obtained directly in industry after completing the formal
studies. (The role of the university being to provide the basic
knowledge, that of industry to provide practical training). Even
if we accept this division of roles the question remains whether
it is better to have the two in sequence, waiting to initiate the
practical side until all the academic work is completed, or whether
it would be advantageous to have a more fluid interaction. Cooperative
programs enabling students to alternate between campus and industry
have been in existence for many years as are summer jobs or internships.
Yet only a limited number of students benefit from these programs
which tend to receive mixed reviews. It is clear that periods of
time spent working in industry can provide a very valuable experience
if the student is exposed to challenging and interesting work. It
would be on the other hand less beneficial if he or she is only
asked to do menial work.
Considering all the different and conflicting positions
it would seem nearly impossible to reach a consensus on the ideal
curriculum. Even minor changes in existing curricula tend to alienate
groups of faculty and strain the relations between different groups
with undesirable consequences. Perhaps one should think of several
alternative curricula. Let each institution select the one that
is suitable for the kind of engineers they want to create. This
may also provide industry with real choices as to the graduates
they want to hire for different types of jobs. Before embarking
into the details of any curriculum, it would be desirable in any
case to try to address some basic questions: what has motivated
the apparent dissatisfaction with the present educational programs?
Is there indeed a strong dissatisfaction and a need for drastic
changes? What kind of professional do we want to create and what
do we expect from him/her? What are the needs of society? What should
be the duration of the curriculum needed to satisfy these expectations
and needs? What should be and can be realistically industry’s
role in education?
CAUSES AND NEEDS FOR CHANGE
It would be important to identify first the cause
for the present dissatisfaction with engineering curricula and secondly
what has motivated it. Traditional engineering programs were intended
in the past to produce highly trained engineers who could solve
the standard and routine problems that are encountered every day
in the practice of the profession in a very efficient manner. From
this point of view training came ahead of education (and to many
it still does). Professors at engineering schools had in most cases
a considerable amount of practical experience and were dedicated
to teaching and solving practical problems with little involvement
in research. Because of the cost of computations and the limitations
in the size of problems that could be solved, engineers had to spend
a significant amount of time learning a variety of approximate methods
that could provide reasonable answers in a reasonable amount of
time and had to decide which one of these methods (and there were
many) was the most appropriate one for each specific case.
At one time any engineer was likely to get involved
in all the facets of a project (design, analysis, construction)
involving access roads, foundations, structures, etc. As the complexity
of civil engineering works increased, it was no longer possible
for one person to do everything and teams each with its own specialization
shared the work. It was desired then to have engineers who were
very proficient at solving the daily problems in narrow areas (e.g.,
environmental impact studies, structural analysis, design of steel
or concrete members, design of foundations, construction scheduling
and management). Only a small number of persons were needed with
the overall vision to supervise the complete project.
As the primary role of universities changed from
undergraduate education to research, the number of faculty members
with experience in engineering practice has consistently decreased.
It is normal now to hire assistant professors as soon as they complete
their Ph.D. degrees and they are required to have a substantial
number of research papers published in technical journals within
5 years. This leaves very little time for involvement in professional
practice. The situation does not improve after they get their permanent
or temporary ‘tenure’ because they are still evaluated
on the amount of research funds generated and the number of refereed
publications. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult
at most universities to teach realistic design courses using only
full time faculty. At the same time a large number of new tools
and methodologies have been developed as a result of the ongoing
research. This has increased significantly the number of subjects
that the faculty considers "must teach" within each specialty
leaving less and less time for electives in related subjects. This
situation has been further aggravated by the continued reduction
in the number of credits required to complete an undergraduate degree
and by the reluctance to delete any obsolete material from the curriculum.
Although curricula are continuously revised, in most cases these
revisions are done in a piecemeal fashion without a serious attempt
to make a major overhaul or to start from scratch.
The continuous developments in computer technology
have shifted the computer from objects of research in mathematics
or electrical engineering laboratories to useful tools for all engineering
professions. Secondly, applications used by the general population
in daily activities have resulted not only in the capability to
perform in a very short time and at very low cost previously impossible
computations but also in the development and general availability
of software packages for all kinds of tasks. It is no longer necessary
for the practicing engineer to spend hours performing analyses by
hand and it is no longer necessary for him/her to learn all the
approximate procedures (although it may still be necessary to perform
checks on the validity of the results on the back of an envelope).
The engineer trained to perform fast and efficient computations
has been displaced by the computer and is now a historical figure.
There is still a need for people who can perform analyses using
existing validated commercial software packages but because of the
increased facility in electronic communications these analyses can
be performed in other countries by people who may not even be engineers
at a much lower cost as long as a competent engineer supervises
the process.
We seem to have universities where undergraduate
education is no longer the primary mission, engineering faculty
with minimal exposure to the practice of the engineering profession,
curricula with an excess of methodology and insufficient physical
applications, and profound disagreements about breadth and depth
needed or the importance of training versus education. A large number
of engineering jobs that have been lost permanently due to technological
developments and a need to redefine the role of engineers (and civil
engineers in particular) in the present global economy and in the
foreseeable future of the society. This would indicate that there
is a need for reflection and planning. It does not mean necessarily
that drastic changes will be required but at least the situation
must be examined.
CIVIL ENGINEERING EXPECTATIONS
The civil engineer of the future is no longer expected
to be the efficient performer of routine computations of the past.
He/she cannot be either a simple user of existing computer software,
an experienced performer of routine chemical analysis of water samples,
a traffic counter or a construction foreman. All of these jobs may
be necessary and important. However, if this is to be expected of
future civil engineers, all we will be doing is upgrading the title
of technicians and four years of undergraduate work will not be
needed. Certainly the other additional knowledge and skills discussed
earlier will not be necessary.
The desirable features of an undergraduate engineering
education that various national committees have recommended, would
tend to create an engineer not only with the same or superior basic
scientific and technical knowledge of past graduates, but also with
a much stronger humanistic background, close in some respects to
a renaissance person. This type of engineer would be very much in
the classical mold of the French Grandes Ecoles, with an appropriate
allowance for technological changes, while maintaining the traditional
U.S. pragmatism. On the other hand some of the new teaching techniques
being mentioned try to incorporate key features of the English tutorial
and educational system. It appears therefore that what is being
proposed is a combination of the best features of various different
systems. There is little doubt that if all the suggested features
are given adequate consideration the product will be a better engineering
professional. This would require realistically a curriculum with
duration of more than four years.
Engineers, as professionals do not receive the
same kind of salaries as lawyers, doctors or businessmen (or lobbyists).
These other professions require however a much longer period of
learning: at least six years for an MBA, seven for a law degree
and ten for a medical doctor. Thus, if one wants to compare the
salaries and degree of recognition of engineers with those of other
professions one should consider at least engineers with M. S. degrees
and probably Ph.D. degrees. An engineer with a simple four year
B. S. degree cannot be fairly likened to other professionals nor
can that person be expected to command the same kind of salary.
Thus the significant question is whether the superior engineer that
is being talked about is supposed to be the result of a modified
four year undergraduate curriculum (which seems extremely naive),
the product of a five or six year curriculum leading to a professional
degree (consisting of four years of general engineering education
and one or two years of advanced specialization), the holder of
a Master’s degree in engineering (which could be granted at
the end of five or six years and correspond to the professional
degree) or the holder of a Doctorate of Engineering (with less emphasis
on research and an academic career and more high level project work).
None of these are new concepts. The possibility of a Master of Engineering
as a required degree has been at least discussed recently and many
consulting firms involved in important engineering projects will
no longer hire civil engineers at the bachelor’s level. The
possibility of a two-year professional engineering school run by
an academic institution in close collaboration with industry is
also beginning to receive attention in some disciplines. The Doctor
of Engineering degree was established over twenty years ago at a
number of far sighted institutions with precisely the goals discussed
here in mind but has not been yet very successful.
It is generally accepted that an engineer is not,
and should not be, a scientist although he needs to understand science
and be aware of scientific developments. It should be equally clear
that an engineer is not and cannot be a technician although he needs
to understand the practical aspects of technology. He/she cannot
even be a glorified technician.
A different question that must be addressed is
whether it is desirable to maintain the present engineering disciplines,
established in the case of civil engineering nearly two hundred
years ago, or whether it would be more appropriate to subdivide
them into a number of separate disciplines (structural engineers,
geotechnical engineers, transportation engineers, environmental
engineers, construction engineers etc…) or even more detailed
specialties (bridge engineers, architectural engineers, foundation
engineers, geo-environmental engineers, highway engineers, transportation
planners, hydraulic engineers, water treatment engineers, environmental
impact engineers and so on) following the present trends mentioned
earlier. It is to be noted that initially there were only civil
and military engineers. Alternatively it might be
appropriate to define new kinds of engineers with a broad but different
mission (infrastructure engineers, offshore engineers, solid mechanics
engineers, fluid dynamics engineers). Is it convenient perhaps to
have different names for different levels of engineers?
Engineers have been happy to stay within the realm
of science and technology without getting involved in the socio-political
implications of their work. They accepted and chose in fact the
role of technical experts who provide advice to other professions
(mostly lawyers) who are the decision-makers. The other professions
gladly accepted this assignation of responsibilities and it has
been often said by government officials that engineers should in
fact stay within their technical areas and limit themselves to providing
input when asked to do so. The lack of more active participation
of engineers in legislative bodies of the government is not healthy
and thus one should also seriously consider a curriculum that would
enable and even encourage engineers to play a stronger role in society.
It would appear that the suggested changes in curriculum that have
been discussed would be a valuable step in that direction.
SOCIETAL NEEDS
It is often mentioned that our society needs and
will continue to need large numbers of engineers. It is also often
stated that to satisfy these needs we must be able to attract more
minorities into the engineering professions. Actually Alexander
(1991) showed evidence to the contrary. Is the perceived demand
for engineers at the technician level or at the higher level implied
by the new suggested curricula? Should all engineering graduates
be accomplished and articulate team leaders or do we need a small,
select, group of potential leaders and a much larger number of specialists?
Should we have correspondingly a single level of engineering graduates
or is there a need for several levels (the three present levels
of bachelor, master and doctoral degrees or only two levels with
different names)? If there is a need for more than one level which
one corresponds to the educational objectives of the new curricula?
The lowest one of three? The lowest of two? The highest? Does it
make sense to plan in detail the curriculum that will lead to one
of the levels without any consideration of the others?
Is the demand for engineers at whatever level is
considered the result of an increase in the number of available
positions due to a sustainable expansion in the size or volume of
engineering works or is it due to the difficulty in motivating bright
students to pursue a difficult and demanding career in engineering
when the financial rewards are much higher in other professions?
If the latter is the case does it make sense to try to attract minorities
to low paying careers unwanted by non-minorities? Is industry truly
interested in upgrading not only the skills and education but also
the salaries of engineers? Would it make sense to start thinking
of ways in which engineering remuneration for the new highly qualified
engineers could be comparable to that of other professions and to
decide then what is the real demand for this kind of an engineer?
These are difficult questions to answer. Yet it
appears that they are crucial ones. Increasing the level of education
and the qualifications of all civil engineers is obviously a commendable
goal in itself but if it requires additional work and an extended
duration of study without an increase in the expected financial
rewards it will be hard to achieve.
It may be possible to improve the quality of the
education we provide without an increase in the cost or duration
of the process with the incorporation of recent developments in
technology (multimedia) and in teaching techniques (active teaching
in particular, combined with the traditional approach). We believe
that it should be done in addition to a longer duration of formal
education. Clearly we should strive continuously to improve as educators.
Yet the questions raised in this paper remain valid and should be
addressed openly.
THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY
There are a variety of ways in which industry can
help and is already contributing to engineering education. All ASCE
student chapters rely for instance on professional engineers for
periodic seminars that provide some exposure to the practical aspects
of the profession. This service is normally rendered free of charge.
Professional engineers also give freely of their time, covering
in some cases expenses out of their own pockets or from contributions
of their firms, to participate in departmental visiting committees
as well as Dean’s advisory boards, providing general guidance
to educational and research programs. In many cases, they do this
at their own alma maters. In others they do it at universities with
which they have had no previous connection. While these activities
are not considered as direct participation or involvement in the
engineering curriculum they are important contributions to the overall
academic program that should not be forgotten.
Many universities have used for a number of years
professional engineers as adjunct professors in the teaching of
design courses. The engineers have full responsibility for the course,
the preparation of lecture material, homework and examinations,
the grading and even the provision of office hours for consultation
like any regular faculty member. They do so however at a nominal
charge normally much smaller than that of full time faculty. A fairer
and better solution is to have design courses taught in true collaboration
between full time faculty and professional engineers. The faculty
member is then responsible for the course and all the ancillary
paper work. The professional engineer helps in the planning of the
material and in particular the selection of realistic design projects,
presents some selected lectures, mentors and advises the students
during the execution of the projects as a consulting resource, and
helps evaluate and critique the final designs. He may be paid for
his service by the university or he may be provided by his company
as an in kind donation. The ASCE Practitioner-in-Residence program
provides an interesting variation (Poirot and Yao, 1991). In this
program, the experienced practitioner (typically with at least twenty
years of responsible charge of multiple projects) would spend a
period of one-week full time at a university at his/her own cost.
The practitioner may work with interested faculty and students,
interact with them, present seminars, sit in some courses, and learn
about the academic environment. This type of program is particularly
attractive because it provides at the same time the desired benefit
for the engineering students and a chance of refreshing/continuing
education for the practitioner. Initially the ASCE program was highly
successful. We do not know whether this program is still being aggressively
pursued. Also the weeklong program is in all probability too short.
Another alternative is to recruit experienced and
successful professional engineers who may be considering a change
of pace as a regular faculty member. This implies that the practitioners
would be willing to start a second career and devote their full
energies to teaching. A number of prestigious universities have
done this successfully albeit at a limited scale. Practical difficulties
arise when inflexible procedures based on bean counting are already
in place to evaluate hiring, promotion, and tenure (full or temporary
in the new modality of some states). Professional engineers usually
do not have a sufficient number of technical publications in refereed
journals required for regular faculty. Most of them do not have
doctoral degrees, now considered a necessity at many universities
for a teaching career. Ironically the universities with the highest
rankings and the best reputations are the ones who are willing to
bypass these requirements when the desired professional becomes
available whereas other schools impose the inflexible requirements
even on special or non-teaching appointments.
All these solutions can be valuable if one finds
highly qualified professional engineers who are willing and able
to dedicate the needed time to teaching or participating in design
courses and who are genuinely interested in education. One must
wonder, however, how many professionals would be necessary if design
courses requiring their involvement were offered in every semester
of at least the last two years (assuming that design courses in
the freshman and sophomore years can be of a more general nature
based on discipline and perhaps even for each specialty). It would
be necessary to have professional advisors/consultants in integrated
design projects. Would it be easy or feasible to find so many qualified,
interested and available engineers? What would be the cost? Who
would pay for it? Can one really expect industry to provide this
manpower free of charge or at a loss? Can industry release their
best talent for teaching duties? Can one expect practicing engineers
to do this work on their own time for free or at a nominal cost
as they do now? Would these arrangements be possible for universities,
which are not located in or near a major metropolitan area adding
travel time and cost to everything else? It seems that before establishing
curricula, which would require extensive industry support, one should
assess the needed manpower and financial resources.
There are other ways in which students can get
exposure to the practice of engineering such as cooperative programs,
internships, and summer jobs. Such programs are already in place
at many universities but they affect only a fraction of the student
body. Their success depends greatly on the type of work the students
are asked to perform and the amount of supervision and mentoring
they receive. It takes time and effort to supervise and mentor such
students. Unfortunately, these programs are usually run by separate
offices at the university or college with very little involvement,
if any, of the regular faculty. Frequently there also exists a lack
of coordination with the regular curriculum. From this viewpoint,
they are considered as extra-curricular activities rather than an
essential component of the educational experience. Yet if the exposure
to engineering practice is truly an important part of a good engineering
curriculum, it seems that all of these activities should be considered
and integrated.
GRADUATE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION
It should be noticed that all of the above discussion
has concentrated on undergraduate education. As discussed earlier
this is where most of the effort on education innovations has been
focused, and particularly at the basic level (first two years) through
the different Coalitions established over the country. Yet the need
for innovation is also strong in graduate and continuing education.
Graduate courses tend to emphasize advanced analysis
techniques (whether for the determination of global response parameters
or for detailed prediction of stresses) or the so-called system
behavior, which tends to provide the explanation for the many code
formulae and regulations, but rarely conceptual design or topics
dealing with engineering practice. Yet the qualities considered
desirable in every engineer as defined by the different committees
and workshops that have addressed this issue are even more important
for graduates with advanced degrees. The role of the Master's degree
must be clearly reevaluated if the undergraduate curriculum is to
be expanded to five or six years or if four years of undergraduate
work are going to be followed by one or two years of a professional
school type education leading to the first professional degree.
The role of the Doctor of Engineering degree should also be reexamined.
Is it possible to continue to produce Ph.D.s destined to become
faculty members and spend their lives conducting basic research?
What is the demand? Many graduates of doctoral programs will end
up working in industry and not necessarily in research and development.
It is essential for these engineers with advanced degrees to have
a proper understanding of the economics and socio-political implications
of major engineering projects. These engineers should become team
leaders in charge of the overall supervision of projects instead
of simply high level specialists in very narrow areas. To be able
to function in this capacity they will have to learn about team
forming, conflict resolution, risk analysis, decision making in
the face of uncertainty, and management skills. Major revisions
in the undergraduate engineering curriculum should not be undertaken
without considering the whole spectrum of bachelor, master and doctoral
degrees. What is done with one degree will have a pronounced influence
on the others. At what level are the most pressing reforms needed?
The need for continuing education or in to day's
preferred terminology lifelong learning, has been recognized for
a long time. Short courses dealing with advanced topics and the
latest developments in specific areas were already offered during
the summer at selected universities in the 50's (for instance the
course on structural dynamics offered at MIT that led to one of
the first books on the subject). One or two week courses continue
to be offered depending on the interest of individual faculty or
on requests from industry. Sometimes they are offered only once;
in other cases they are taught for a number of years as long as
there is demand for them. In some cases these courses involve the
local faculty at the institution offering them with or without participation
of professional engineers and perhaps some invited faculty from
other universities. In other cases they are organized with mostly
or exclusively visiting faculty. The motivation to offer them is
then in some instances purely financial. Professional societies
are also involved now in offering one or two-day short courses,
normally of a more applied and practical nature than those taught
at academic institutions. Finally an increasing number of private
organizations unrelated to universities or professional societies
are now in the business of organizing one or two day seminars at
prices exceeding those of one or two week courses at universities.
While there is now a very large number of offerings there does not
seem to be any coordination between them and the topics are decided
in an entirely random and chaotic way. More focused and coordinated
programs of continuing education are beginning to be organized at
the request of specific companies. They may be tailored to their
specific needs, offered in house with the faculty members traveling
there or by remote means (videotapes, teleconferencing, Internet
etc.). It is time for universities to start considering continuing
education as an integral part of their educational mission and to
look at it in the same light as undergraduate or graduate education.
With an increasing number of states requiring continuing education
for P.E. license renewal, educators and practitioners should work
together to provide various opportunities of career development
with CEU (continuing education units) or other credits that are
acceptable by state registration boards.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Although the motivational need is no longer present
at these levels and most graduate students can visualize the practical
usefulness of what they are learning, the basic concepts of active
learning are still applicable and integrated design courses are
still needed. Our views on civil engineering education are given
elsewhere (e.g., see Moore, 1998; Moore and Yao, 1998; Poirot and
Yao, 1991; Roesset and Yao, 1988; Roesset and Yao, 1990; Russell
and Yao, 1996; Yao, 1996; and Yao et al., 1997). In principle, we
believe that
- Teaching is the most important function of a university;
- Faculty members must keep themselves up-to-date by getting actively
involved in research activities;
- Practitioners should become more involved in education by (1)
becoming full-time or part-time teachers (e.g., W. P. Moore, Jr.
at Texas A&M University, John M. Hanson of North Carolina
State University, Bud Griffis at Columbia University, and M. Agbabian
at University of Southern California), (2) serving as mentors
for students, faculty, and newer engineers; and (3) serving as
ABET evaluators;
- Faculty members should serve as role-models for their students
by being (1) enthusiastic in their professional endeavors, (2)
keeping up-to-date in the state-of-the-art in research and practice,
and (3) pursuing life-long learning; and
- It is timely to implement the many things that we have been
talking about during these past several decades.
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
We are indeed fortunate to have outstanding representatives
of education (Bill Kelly, Dean of Engineering, The Catholic University
of America), industry (Delon Hampton, COB and CEO, Delon Hampton
and Associates, Chartered), and government agencies (Marshall Lih
of NSF) to present their viewpoints and to serve as panelists. In
addition, we have invited a number of leaders in education, practice,
and government to present discussions either in writing or in person.
Of course, the discussion will be open to all participants of this
session. We expect to have a lively and meaningful discussion on
this important and timely topic.
The first paragraph of the introduction section
is mainly based on writing of the late Professor G. A. Leonards
of Purdue University as given to Jim Yao in 1987. We also wish to
thank the Lohman Professorship in Engineering Education for support
in preparing this paper and in organizing and conducting this session.
Paul Roschke read the draft manuscript and made constructive suggestions
to improve this paper. We also appreciate your active participation
in this meaningful discussion.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J. A., (1990), "The Civil Engineering
Shortage: Reality or Myth?" Education and Continuing Development
for The Civil Engineer, ASCE, 17-20 April 1990, pp. 463-468.
ASCE (1995), Summary Report – 1995 Civil
Engineering Education Conference, Sponsored in Cooperation with
the National Science Foundation, Denver, Colorado, 8-11 June 1995,
16 pages.
Boyer, E. L., (1990), Scholarship Revisited:
Priorities of the Professoriate, The Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Felder, R. M., (1993), "Reaching the Second
Tier – Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education,"
Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.
286-290.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A.,
(1991), Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom,
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A.,
(1998), "Maximizing Instruction through Cooperative Learning,
ASEE PRISM, February, 1998, pp. 24-29.
Moore, W. P., Jr., (1998), "Computing Simulation
as a Substitute for Physical Testing," Paper No. P331-2 , to
be presented at the Structural Engineering World Congress (SEWC),
San Francisco, CA 18-23 July 1998.
Moore, W. P. Jr., and Yao, J. T. P., (1998), "On
Education and Practice of Structural Engineering," Paper No.
P316-2, to be presented at the Structural Engineering World Congress
(SEWC), San Francisco, CA, 18-23 July 1998.
Poirot, J. W., and Yao, J. T. P., (1991), Practitioner-in-Residence:
An ASCE Pilot Program and The CH2M Hill – Texas A&M Experience,
Report to ASCE EDAC/PAC Joint Task Committee on Educator/Practitioner
Interface.
Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (1988), "Civil
Engineering Needs in the 21st Century," Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering, ASCE, 114 (3),
July 1988, pp. 248-255.
Roesset, J. M., and Yao, J. T. P., (1990), "The
Civil Engineer: Scientist or Technician?" Education and
Continuing Development for the Civil Engineer, ASCE, April 1990,
pp. 741-749.
Russell, J., and Yao, J. T. P., (1996), "Education
Conference Delivers Initiatives," Feature, Journal of Management
in Engineering, ASCE, November 1996, pp. 17-24.
Yao, J. T. P., (1996), "On Civil Infrastructure
Systems and Engineering Education," Viewpoint, Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 1996, pp.
1-4.
Yao, J. T. P., and others (1997), "Long-range
Planning of Civil Engineering Curriculum," Forum,
Return to
the Lohman homepage |
