452
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 46, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2003
Curriculum for an Engineering Renaissance Daniel J. Moore, Senior Member, IEEE, and David R. Voltmer, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Engineering is a serving profession. During the last century, engineering curricula have become technology and process focused to the detriment of the “soft skills” so necessary for a professional. This paper proposes that engineering curricula undergo major revisions to return to the original service mission of the profession. The key elements for a renaissance within engineering education are presented. Index Terms—Collaborative proficiency, critical thinking, design, engineering curriculum, ethics, independent learning, liberal studies, professionalism, systems engineering.
I. PROLOGUE “If you keep doing what you have always done, you’re going to get what you always got.” —Roderick G. W. Chu
T
HE FORM of the papers for this special issue, as indicated by many reviewers’ comments, was to specify detailed curricula—the content, number, and hours of specific courses. This approach to define the future curriculum is based upon predictions and extrapolations of the present curriculum. However, the authors feel strongly that the underlying philosophy of engineering education must undergo a radical rethinking. Designing the curriculum of the next decade without examining the foundational concepts of the present curriculum is much like applying bandaids to a broken arm; it is unlikely to solve the underlying problems. It is the authors’ contention that a much more radical approach is needed. This paper is written from this viewpoint.
tion with rigor and discipline. Engineers should be educated to examine critically all aspects of the problems that are presented to them. Engineers must learn the design process, i.e., to solicit the client’s needs, to consider all the constraints or limitations on the problem, to establish the specifications possessed by an acceptable solution, to consider a variety of alternative solutions, to establish criteria by which the relative merits of each proposed solution are determined, and finally to decide which solution is the “best” from among the many possibilities. Although not often covered in the classroom, the total design process [2] includes manufacturing, marketing, and deployment, as well. This process of engineering is accomplished within an ethical framework. In short, engineers are problem solvers and designers; their education must prepare them for this role in an ever-changing world. Currently, engineering education focuses on the rigor and discipline of problem solving using systematic processes, techniques, and advanced tools. The increase in “required” technical material has resulted in the neglect of creativity and imagination in many programs. Many curricula are rigidly prescribed with few true electives. Does this curricular model best prepare an individual for the practice of engineering? The authors feel that the answer is a resounding NO. Instead, a significant change in curricular viewpoint is needed. In the words of Splitt [3], “The new paradigm for engineering education goes beyond the need to keep students at the cutting edge of technology and calls for a better balance in the various aspects of engineering school scholarship.” III. THE CHANGING FACE OF ENGINEERING CURRICULA
II. WHAT IS AN ENGINEER? The Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology (ABET) [1] defines engineering as “ the profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences, gained by study, experience, and practice, is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind.” Few individuals are endowed naturally with the varied array of traits and skills needed to pursue the engineering profession. Instead, future engineers enroll in an education process that follows carefully designed curricula and is implemented by gifted, caring teachers of the profession. Within this paper, the elements of the future engineering curricula are presented and discussed. Ideally, an engineering education should prepare engineering students, i.e., emerging engineers, to use a problem-solving process that synergistically combines creativity and imaginaManuscript received October 31, 2002; revised August 3, 2003. The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN 47803 USA (e-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]). Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TE.2003.818754
Many of the earliest engineering projects were the design and construction of public works for the general good of society. The Incan water canals, the Great Wall of China, the Greek public buildings, and the Roman transportation and public works were undertaken by the engineers of antiquity as a means of raising the living standards of their societies. This focus—serving the needs of society—is the root of and, therefore, should remain the vision for all engineering education. Engineering is a serving profession and, as such, this theme should be the focus for all engineering curricula, including electrical engineering and computer engineering. In the last century, the education of engineering professionals of all technical specialties was formalized by curricula that were based on a broad range of “fundamental engineering principles.” A broad understanding of the physical sciences was the underlying foundation of all engineering curricula. These engineers had an intimate involvement and an appreciation of the natural world around them. As engineering curricula matured, engineering fundamentals were supplemented by a significant nontechnical component (often called the “soft skills”) that included problem-solving and decision-making skills and liberal
0018-9359/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
MOORE AND VOLTMER: CURRICULUM FOR AN ENGINEERING RENAISSANCE
and humanistic studies. A strong professional flavor was maintained; engineers had a mission to serve society. Recently, pressures on curricula have intensified as a result of the rapid increase in the scientific knowledge base and emerging technologies. These pressures have resulted in the development of application-specific courses, often to the detriment of fundamentals. Engineering graduates with this background are qualified in how to use the current “hot” technology without a solid grounding in the fundamental principles upon which it is based. The emerging engineers of today are prepared for the breadth of today’s technology within their specific discipline, but their knowledge of the underlying principles is weak. The authors feel that the English bard William Shakespeare (with tongue in cheek) might refer to many of today’s engineering curricula as “much ado about nothing.” The authors advocate a renewed emphasis upon the essence of engineering—service, professionalism, creativity, and problem solving—as the fundamental premise of the curricula of 2013, an “Engineering Renaissance.” This “Engineering Renaissance” cannot occur without major curricular changes. The practice of engineering requires a broader perspective than is available in many current curricula; emerging engineers must recognize their role, not merely as developers of new technological systems, but also as educated, informed, and ethical servants of society with a higher purpose. The following section contains what the authors believe to be the fundamental components to achieve this curricular vision. IV. THE ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING (ECE) CURRICULUM FOR 2013 How can educators prepare ECE emerging engineers for productive professional careers in this changing world? How can educators ensure engineering graduates will be competent at the midpoint and at the end of their careers? The authors propose the following curricular guidelines upon which to build a curriculum that will be robust and vibrant, educating young men and women for the engineering profession for many years to come. They do not propose a “one size fits all” curricular prescription, but rather enumerate the conceptual foundations. Each engineering department can use these concepts to create their own unique curriculum that represents their strengths and interests. Moreover, the form of implementation will depend upon the local conditions as well. The curricular guidelines below are listed in no particular order followed by a detailed explanation of each. Refinement of these guidelines occurred during a curricular workshop with energetic contributions by all participants [4]. • Art of Design; • Critical Thinking; • Independent Learning; • Systems Engineering; • Collaborative Proficiency; • Professionalism and Ethics; • Liberal Studies; • Natural World Principles; • Mathematical Fluency; • Laboratory Expertise.
453
A. Art of Design Design is the heart of engineering and must be at the core of engineering education. It must be embedded in all four years of the curriculum; it must be an integral part of technical as well as nontechnical courses. The content should include the formal process of design, creativity techniques, entrepreneurial skills, project management, and marketing. B. Critical Thinking Engineering is a profession in which decision making and problem solving is paramount; emerging engineers must practice and hone these skills in all courses, technical and nontechnical. Formal study and repeated application of problem-solving methods must be an integral part of the curriculum. Students must be challenged to analyze critically problem situations that include technical, economic, social, environmental, and ethical factors. C. Independent Learning These graduates, the emerging engineers of 2013, will practice engineering in a world vastly different from that of their teachers. They cannot learn everything “at the professor’s knee.” They must be prepared to learn independently as most of their practice will be with technology that does not exist while they are in school. They must be prepared to push back the boundaries of discovery and invention. They will be the Nobel Prize winners of the future! D. Systems Engineering The increasingly complex nature of technology and the interrelated nature of society requires a systems viewpoint in the design process. Systems engineering provides an encompassing “global” perspective to engineering design that incorporates technical, social, economic, political, and environmental considerations. Systems engineering provides a breadth of perspective that is vital to conceiving, proposing, understanding, and fabricating new technologies, e.g., MEMS and biocomputers. Moreover, since the principles of systems engineering are widely applied in many other professions, engineering graduates will be better prepared for many postgraduation career opportunities. E. Collaborative Proficiency Team work is an essential skill for all professionals, especially for engineers as members of design teams. Students must gain knowledge of the roles, responsibilities, and interactions associated with team behavior. Students gain valuable team skills in collaborative activities and projects. Face-to-face and remote collaboration enable students to gain an appreciation of professional and cultural diversity. F. Professionalism and Ethics As professionals, engineers occupy a position of trust and are bound to exhibit a model of ethical behavior in their professional practice. The canon of engineering ethics must occupy a central role in the curricula; students must learn, appreciate, and adopt
454
these principles for their professional careers. In addition, the authors feel that the service nature of engineering should be emphasized in the curriculum. Faculty and students should engage in service learning as a professional responsibility. G. Liberal Studies The ever-shrinking world demands that emerging engineers have a multicultural world view. With increasing emphasis on team and project management skills, the social and humanistic studies are an essential component of this curriculum. Art and music are vital elements in heightening creativity skills. The curriculum should develop, hone, and instill an appreciation for oral and written communications skills. In addition, the authors recommend that a minimum of one year of foreign language and culture be included in every student’s program of study. H. Natural World Principles The traditional subjects of physics and chemistry have long provided engineers with an understanding of the natural world sufficient for professional practice. Their importance is no less important today. However, the engineering curriculum must now expand to include biology. Technological applications in the biological sciences and long-overlooked environmental issues will be vitally important to present and future students; they must be prepared. I. Mathematical Fluency All engineers must speak, understand, and appreciate the language of mathematics. It is the language with which much of the natural world is most often modeled. A mastery of mathematical fundamentals empowers engineers to analyze complex design problems. Moreover, numeric techniques coupled with computer-aided analysis and design (CAAD) increase even further the power available to the engineer. However, these CAAD tools are legitimate only when the underlying mathematical principles are internalized by the user. Without a solid foundation in mathematics, CAAD tools prove again the adage “garbage in, garbage out.” J. Laboratory Expertise The “real world” provides the materials and devices with which engineers design, and that world is where the performance of systems is verified. All engineers must understand the principles of metrology and be experienced in the use of electronic instruments. Laboratory simulations are useful alternatives in many situations, but they are not substitutes for actual laboratory experience. The laboratory is where a “feel” for engineering is developed. Too much reliance upon simulations is fraught with dangers, as noted by Lucky [5]: “Engineering today feels like the window seat on an airplane. Those can’t be real transistors and wires down there, can they? Watching the simulations on my computer monitor is like watching the movie on the the airplane—an unreality wrapped in another unreality sensual aspects of engineering have been replaced for many of us by the antiseptic, ubiquitous, and impersonal CRT.”
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 46, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2003
V. POSTLOGUE These guidelines are not complete; they are only the starting point. The authors propose these guidelines to the engineering profession, and to electrical and computer engineer educators in particular, to stimulate critical review of existing engineering curricula. In addition, they feel that omission of any of these topics from curricular planning can be justified only by a detailed critical analysis and the proposal of suitable alternatives. Several explanatory remarks regarding these proposed curricular guidelines follow. These remarks are intended to provide details on the implementation of these guidelines. 1) The implementation of these guidelines into a curriculum is not intended to be an end in itself; it is the first step of a continuing process that prepares emerging engineers to become professionals. 2) The guidelines provide the fundamental foundations for many professional careers—engineering, management, public policy and governmental service, medicine, and law, to name a few. Entry into these professions is accomplished with additional (and continuous) study and renewal, particularly in engineering, where new technology and applications appear almost daily. 3) The guidelines must be implemented in ways that provide a sound preparation for graduate study leading to advanced degrees in engineering, management, government, medicine, and law. Likewise, they must provide the background for continuing education and, ultimately, for certification or licensure. 4) This change in the academic community will be, in our opinion, the most difficult part of making the necessary changes. The recent history of pedagogical changes in engineering education suggests that the students and the public accept major changes much faster and better than the academic community. Many faculty members will find giving up their specialty courses difficult. Instead of focusing on special topics, they must provide an atmosphere in which each student learns “how to learn” and gains the educational foundation and the skills for life-long learning. 5) The authors do not advocate the complete absence of technological advances from the curriculum. To ignore them in engineering education would be irresponsible and would not prepare students well for current engineering practice. One solution is to defer the latest “gizmos” to graduate studies; the basic principles are learned in the undergraduate studies. 6) The authors are heartened to see that steps are being taken in that direction. The 1990s saw several alternative curricula proposed, adopted, and assessed. For example, the Foundation Coalition [6] was specifically funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to propose, address, and assess curricular changes. However, the coalition’s implementations were constrained in many cases by existing departmental and disciplinary-specific compartmentalization of most engineering programs. The time to look at a totally different radical approach is now.
MOORE AND VOLTMER: CURRICULUM FOR AN ENGINEERING RENAISSANCE
REFERENCES [1] Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., 1998 ABET Accreditation Yearbook. Baltimore, MD: ABET, 1998. [2] S. Pugh, Total Design. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1995. [3] F. Splitt, “Systemic engineering education reform: A grand challenge,” Bent Tau Beta Pi, pp. 29–34, Spring 2003. [4] D. J. Moore and D. R. Voltmer, “Time for an engineering renaissance workshop,” presented at the Share the Future Conf. IV, Tempe, AZ, Mar. 16–18, 2003. [5] R. W. Lucky, “The future of engineering,” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 35, p. 86, Sept. 2002. [6] The Foundation Coalition (2003, July). [Online]. Available: http://www. foundationcoalition.org/
Daniel J. Moore (S’86–M’87–SM’02) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1989 in the area of compound semiconductors. He is the Associate Dean of the Faculty and Associate Professor in the Electrical and Engineering Department at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN. He has directed the departmental senior design program for several years and now oversees externally sponsored multidisciplinary graduate and undergraduate projects. His current research interests include engineering design methodologies, student learning styles, and active/cooperative education. Dr. Moore was the Past Chair of the Educational Research Methods (ERM) division of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).
455
David R. Voltmer (S’65–M’66–SM’78) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Ohio State University in 1970 in the area of electromagnetics. He is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN. He is currently involved in the continued development of the electrical and computer engineering (ECE) design core sequence, where he has served as Senior Project Mentor for many years. He continues to be an enthusiastic teacher and writer in the area of electromagnetics. Dr. Voltmer has served as a Member of the IEEE Education Society AdCom, an Officer in the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) electrical engineering division, and numerous positions in the Frontiers in Education (FIE) conferences. He is the current Secretary–Treasurer of the Educational Research Methods (ERM) division of ASEE.
