Title  : NSF 95-65 Restructuring Engineering Education: A Focus on Change
Type   : Report
NSF Org: EHR / DUE
Date   : August 16, 1995
File   : nsf9565

                 Restructuring Engineering Education:
                           A Focus on Change

                     Report of an NSF Workshop on
                         Engineering Education

                                                Chair:  Carolyn Meyers
                                       Georgia Institute of Technology

                                          Rapporteur:  Edward W. Ernst
                                          University of South Carolina

Division of Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
National Science Foundation
April 1995

Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed in this report  are those of the
workshop participants and do not necessarily represent NSF policy.
Their recommendations are under review at NSF.

Questions may be directed to:

DUE Information Center 703/ 306-1666

                 Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE)
                 National Science Foundation
                 4201 Wilson Boulevard
                 Arlington, VA 22230

Internet:  Undergrad@nsf.gov

Electronic Dissemination: This and other NSF publications are
available electronically through STIS (Science and Technology
Information System), NSF's on-line publishing system, described in the
"STIS Flyer" at the end of this document.

Ordering by Electronic Mail or FAX:  If you have access to Internet,
you may order publications electronically.  Internet users should send
requests to pubs@NSF.gov.  In your request, include the NSF
publication number and title, number of copies, and your name and
complete mailing address.  Printed publications also may be ordered by
FAX (703-644-4278).  Publications should be received within 3 weeks
after receipt of the request.

Telephonic Device for the Deaf:  NSF has TDD (Telephonic Device for
the Deaf) capability which enables individuals with hearing
impairments to communicate with the Division of  Human Resource
Management for information relating to NSF programs, employment, or
for general information. This number is (703) 306-0090.

National Science Foundation
Directorate for Education and Human Resources

January 15, 1995

Dr. Neal F. Lane, Director
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230

Dear Neal:

I  am  pleased to submit the report from the workshop on restructuring
engineering  education.   The workshop was developed  with  leadership
from  the  Division of Undergraduate Education of the Directorate  for
Education  and  Human Resources in cooperation with  the  Division  of
Engineering Education and Centers of the Directorate for Engineering.

During  June  6-9,  1994,  65 participants,  representing  engineering
faculty,  engineering  education  coalitions,  engineering  societies,
industry,  and  students, met.  The purpose of their meeting  was   to
explore issues important to the continuing development of high quality
engineering  curricula which are relevant to the needs of our  society
as  it  moves  into the twenty-first century.  During the three  days,
participants   worked  in  groups  representative   of   the   various
constituencies  to develop recommendations that will provide  a  basis
for future activities and projects designed to improve the quality  of
undergraduate engineering education.  Through their joint efforts, and
with  expanded support from NSF and others, academia and industry  can
work   together  to  achieve  comprehensive  reform  of  undergraduate
engineering   education.   The  reform  of  undergraduate  engineering
education  will  better prepare graduating engineers  for  entering  a
variety  of  professions and provide expanded access to the contextual
richness of engineering coursework for non-majors.

Sincerely,

Luther S. Williams
Assistant Director

Letter of Transmittal

January 8, 1995

Dr. Robert F. Watson, Director
Division of Undergraduate Education
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230

Dear Dr. Watson:

I  am  pleased  to submit the report from the workshop,  Restructuring
Engineering Education.  The leadership and support provided  by  NSFs
Division  of Undergraduate Education in the planning and execution  of
the workshop was greatly appreciated.

Held   June  6-9,  1994, the workshop developed  recommendations   for
improving  the  ability of engineering education to  better  meet  the
needs  of  the twenty-first century.  The 65 participants  represented
engineering  faculty,  engineering education  coalitions,  engineering
societies, industry, and students.

Workshop  participants  were  organized  into   four  working  groups:
students,   faculty,  curricula,  and  experiential  learning.    Each
participant  was  assigned  to two working groups  to  assure  maximum
interaction and communication.

On  behalf   of the members of the planning committee, the chairs  and
scribes  of the working groups, and all other participants,  I  submit
this  report  to NSF in the spirit of cooperation, collaboration,  and
optimism for the future of engineering education.  I encourage NSF, in
cooperation   with  other  federal  agencies,  academia,   engineering
societies, and industry to take a leadership role in implementing  the
recommendations in the report.

On behalf of all participants in the workshop, I wish to extend thanks
to  Drs.  Norman  Fortenberry, Don Kirk, Chalmers Sechrist,  and  Jack
Waintraub  of  the Division of Undergraduate Education at  NSF.   Your
continued commitment to engineering education and your recognition  of
the potentially central role of engineering education to comprehensive
reform  of  undergraduate education, particularly the  preparation  of
future teachers, is applauded.

Sincerely,

Carolyn W. Meyers, Ph.D.
Workshop Chair
Georgia Institute of Technology

                                Preface

Within  the  context of seeking to understand better the  programmatic
implications  of  the broad changes needed for engineering  education,
the  National Science Foundations Division of Undergraduate Education
(DUE)  in  cooperation with the Division of Engineering Education  and
Centers  (EEC)  organized  the Workshop on  Restructuring  Engineering
Education.   The  workshop, held June 6-9, 1994 included  65  selected
participants   representing   individual  investigators,   engineering
education  coalitions,  Technology  Reinvestment  Program  coalitions,
engineering  societies, the National Research Councils (NRCs)  Board
on   Engineering  Education,  the  American  Society  for  Engineering
Education  (ASEE) Engineering Deans Council, industry, and  students.
The   charge   was  to  address  the  curricular  content   (including
experiential/contextual learning activities) and  the  broad  academic
framework of an engineering education which is responsive to  the  new
challenges of an increasingly interdependent global society .

The  workshop  was organized around four working groups each  with  14
participants.   Each group focused on one of four  topics:   students,
faculty,  curricula, and experiential learning.  Workshop participants
were   assigned  to  two  working  groups  each  to  promote   maximum
interaction  and  cross-fertilization of  ideas.   It  was  explicitly
recognized   that the issues related to engineering education  do  not
separate  neatly but are interwoven among the topics.  Not  only  must
curricula be integrated but also much of engineering education must be
integrated.   The far ranging scope of the discussions in  each  group
was  reflected in the reports from the scribes and the chairs  of  the
four groups.

This  report  of  the workshop is an integration of the  reports,  the
perspectives,  and the concerns from the four discussion  groups.   An
attempt  to summarize a report on students or faculty or curricula  or
contextual   learning  would  fail  to  convey  the  nature   of   the
discussions.   In  these  discussions,  the  interfaces  between   the
designated  areas received as much attention as the areas  themselves.
Nevertheless,   the  workshop  generated  items  on  which   consensus
developed.   These  are  presented  in  the  Recommendations  and  the
Executive   Summary  with  the  body  of  the  report  providing   the
background.
                           Table of Contents

LETTER FROM LUTHER S. WILLIAMS                                  I
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL                                          II
PREFACE                                                       III
RECOMMENDATIONS                                                 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                               2
RESTRUCTURING ENGINEERING EDUCATION:  A FOCUS ON CHANGE         4
BACKGROUND                                                      4
VISION AND CHALLENGE FOR CHANGE                                 4
COMPREHENSIVE RESTRUCTURING                                     6
 FACULTY REWARDS AND INCENTIVES                                8
 ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION                                         9
 DIVERSITY                                                    10
 DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS                                      11
 DEVELOPMENT OF FACULTY                                       11
 THE CURRICULUM:  WHAT WE TEACH AND HOW WE TEACH              12
 IMPLEMENTATION                                               14
THE REALITY OF CHANGE                                          16
REFERENCES                                                     17
APPENDIX A:  WORKSHOP AGENDA                                   12
APPENDIX B:  INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY OF KEYNOTE ADDRESSES         15
APPENDIX C:  WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS                             19
APPENDIX D:  KEY ISSUES                                        25
STUDENTS                                                       25
FACULTY                                                        27
CURRICULA                                                      28
EXPERIENTIAL/CONTEXTUAL LEARNING                               29
APPENDIX E:  BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS                              31
BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                   31
ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS                 34
ANNOTATED SUMMARIES OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS                    41
 EDUCATION FOR THE MANUFACTURING WORLD OF THE FUTURE          41
 ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES      42
 ENGINEERING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION                          45
 ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION                             46
 QUALITY OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION                             48
 THE NATIONAL ACTION AGENDA FOR ENGINEERING                   51
 FOCUS ON THE FUTURE                                          53
 NSF DISCIPLINARY WORKSHOPS ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION        54
 SCHOLARSHIP RECONSIDERED                                      0
 NEW CHALLENGES IN EDUCATING ENGINEERS                         1
 CREATING OUR COMMON FUTURE                                    4
 AMERICAS ACADEMIC FUTURE                                     4
 CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM RESEARCH                          5
 ENGINEERING EDUCATION:  INNOVATION THROUGH INTEGRATION        8
 PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH                                8
 THE LONG VIEW                                                10
 REPORT ON THE 1993 INDUSTRY SUMMIT                           12
 SOCIOENGINEERING                                             13
 WHAT IS AT THE END OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL RAINBOW?             15
 ENGINEERS:  THE NAVIGATORS FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE          17
 ENGINEERING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE                             20
 STUDYING FOR THE FUTURE                                      21
 RE-ENGINEERING ENGINEERING EDUCATION                         22
 TAKING THE LEAD                                              22
 ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN A CHANGING WORLD                    25
 MAJOR ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION                        28

                            Recommendations

1.     Engineering  Education  Must  Encourage  Multiple  Thrusts  for
  Diversity.    Even though engineering and engineering education  are
  more  diverse now than in the past, challenges to our society demand
  even more, in both kind and degree, including:
     Educational and professional diversity among faculty;
     Ethnic, racial, and gender diversity among faculty and students;
     Diversity in academic backgrounds and experiences among students;
     and
     Diversity in planned educational experiences that respond to  the
     demands  of  a diverse workplace including integrative laboratory
     experiences  which  promote  inquiry,  relevance,  and   hands-on
     experience in a variety of contexts.
2.    Engineering Education needs a new system of faculty rewards  and
  incentives.   Faculty  perceive  the  present  system  to  focus  on
  disciplinary research and publication; this focus must be expanded to
  include  teaching, research, advising, and service  in  a  way  that
  includes all faculty as valued colleagues.
3.    Assessment  and  evaluation  processes  must  encourage  desired
  expectations for both faculty and students:
     New  approaches  to  assessment must judge faculty  contributions
     across the expanded spectrum;
     Methods  for  evaluating  student efforts  must  promote  student
     learning; and
     Careful assessment of teaching and learning is needed to identify
     successful      educational     innovation     and      encourage
     adaptation/adoption by others.
4.     The   changes   needed   for  engineering   education   require
  comprehensive change across the campus, not just in the  engineering
  college.    As  reflected  in  the  previous  items,  colleges   and
  universities must take new approaches toward students, faculty,  and
  curricula.  These changes can not credibly be limited to engineering
  colleges,  but  will  necessarily entail a comprehensive  reform  of
  undergraduate education.

                           Executive Summary

The  recommendations delineated on the previous page indicate  several
broad  foci  of  the workshop discussions.  Restructuring  engineering
education  requires that we examine the enterprise  from  a  different
point of view, with new measures, and with new expectations.

Diversity  for  all aspects of engineering education  seems  to  be  a
cornerstone  of  the restructured enterprise.  To encourage  diversity
requires rewards and incentives compatible with the diversity we seek.
Similarly, changes in our expectations for diversity and in the reward
structure  underscore new approaches to assessment and  evaluation  of
faculty,  students,  courses, curricula and  programs  in  engineering
education.   The  recommendation for comprehensive change  across  the
campus recognizes that engineering education must function as part  of
the larger campus setting.

Workshop discussions focused, not on the recommendations per  se,  but
on   four  aspects  critical  for  engineering  education:   students,
faculty, experiential learning, and curricula:

Students are central to the educational process.  As such, they should
be active participants in the educational transformation process.  The
educational experience should develop the motivation, capability,  and
knowledge base for lifelong learning.

We must encourage faculty to assume a more active role not only in the
implementation/delivery of the educational experience for the student,
but  also  in the innovation and continuous improvement necessary  for
engineering education to meet the challenges.  Changes in  the  reward
structure and the assessment process are more critical for encouraging
faculty changes than for other areas.

The  learning  experience must move from the lecture as  the  dominant
mode  to  include  a significant level of active learning  approaches.
Laboratory  and  internship  experiences should  provide  the  broader
contexts  within which to view trade-offs in the design,  development,
and  implementation of engineering systems.  These experiences  should
encourage world class design, development and implementation processes
for  engineering systems.  Cooperative learning approaches  and  other
contextual  experiential  learning  must  be  integrated  within   the
classroom.

Engineering curricula should be broad and flexible, preparing students
for both leadership and specialist roles in a variety of career areas.
Each  curriculum should be designed to develop graduates who are life-
long  learners  and contributors to the profession, fully  capable  of
succeeding  in  the  current  and  future  global,  multi-disciplinary
marketplace.  The learning experiences for which the curriculum is the
central  part  should  accommodate and  serve  students  with  various
learning  styles.   Further, engineering education should  provide  an
opportunity  for non-majors to study engineering topics  and  concepts
and should work to make these studies accessible to non-majors.

Restructuring Engineering Education:  A Focus on Change

                              Background

Over  the  past  50  years a succession of studies  [1-9]  has  probed
engineering education.  Each has acknowledged the enterprise to  be  a
vital  part  of the nations higher education with many strengths  and
contributions.   Each  also  noted changes to  strengthen  engineering
education  and some offered challenges for broad changes.   Over  this
half-century  period engineering education has changed  and,  although
most of the changes can be noted as incremental, the continuous change
sums  to  changes of significant proportions.  In this last decade  of
the  20th  century,  the  need  for sweeping  changes  in  engineering
education  appears more credible than at any time in the past  several
decades.  Most  recently, forums have been sponsored by  the  National
Research  Councils (NRCs) Board on Engineering [10] and the American
Society  for  Engineering  Educations  (ASEEs)  Engineering   Deans
Council [11].  Each re-emphasized and expanded upon earlier calls  for
change.  Each also advised, among other things, increased attention by
the federal government to the needs of engineering education.

Within  the  context of seeking to understand better the  programmatic
implications  of  the broad changes needed for engineering  education,
the  National Science Foundations Division of Undergraduate Education
(DUE)  in  cooperation with the Division of Engineering Education  and
Centers  (EEC)  organized  the Workshop on  Restructuring  Engineering
Education:  A Systems Approach to Integrated Curricula which was  held
June    6-9,    1994.    The   participants   represented   individual
investigators,    engineering   education    coalitions,    Technology
Reinvestment  Program  coalitions, engineering  societies,  the  NRCs
Board  on  Engineering Education, the ASEE Engineering Deans Council,
industry,  and  students.  The charge was to  address  the  curricular
content  (including experiential/contextual learning  activities)  and
the  broad  academic  framework of an engineering education  which  is
responsive  to  the  new challenges of an increasingly  interdependent
global   society  .   The  participants  were  organized   into   four
overlapping  discussion  groups:  students,  faculty,  curricula,  and
experiential learning.  This report is an integration of the  reports,
the perspectives, and the concerns from the discussion groups.

                    Vision and Challenge for Change

Our  society  faces  significant  challenges  including  international
competition,   the   global  environment,  an   increasingly   diverse
population, and a rapid growth in information technologies.  Industry,
government  agencies, and educational institutions all have  important
roles in meeting these challenges.  Higher education, in general,  has
the  role  of  providing  the professional preparation  for  the  next
generation  of  business leaders, technical professionals,  government
officials,  and  educators at all levels.  Engineering  education,  in
particular,   will   have   a  central  role   in   our   increasingly
technologically-based  society.   The  education  of  engineers   must
prepare  them  for the full disciplinary nature of the  problems  they
will face.

Reports  and presentations about engineering education over  the  past
decade  document  the  growing  need for  change  in  the  way  we  do
engineering   education.   Sweeping  changes  in   the   context   for
engineering  accompanied  by significant  changes  in  the  challenges
offered by the engineering workplace bring an urgency to the need  for
broad change in the education of engineering graduates [12-13].

There  is a growing realization among engineering faculty that  a  new
vision for the education of engineers is evolving, a vision based upon
the  needs  of  engineering in the 21st century.  The philosophy  that
forms this vision differs from the current more rigid and more uniform
basis  of todays curricula.  This vision welcomes and encourages  all
motivated  and talented students to become engineers.  These  students
discover  engineering from the beginning of their academic career  and
enjoy  a  nurturing environment throughout their university education.
They find flexible curricula that recognize individual learning styles
and  diverse  career paths.  Guided by advisors and mentors,  students
choose  electives  for  career preparation in support  of  educational
goals and a strong foundation in the fundamentals of engineering.

The  new  paradigm depicts engineering education as broad and  forward
looking.  It describes an engineering education that:

     offers a broad liberal education that provides the diversity and
  breadth needed for engineering;
    prepares graduates for entry into careers and further study in
both the engineering and non-engineering marketplace; and
     develops  the  motivation, capability, and  knowledge  base  for
  lifelong learning.

Faculty  accept  responsibility  as  mentors,  with  a  focus  on  the
development  of the student as an emerging professional, building  the
students  self  esteem and competencies, and accepting responsibility
for  the  intellectual growth of the student.  The engineering faculty
adopts technological literacy as a mission for engineering education.

The  contents  of the new curricula reflect this vision,  and  courses
include  a  broad  range  of concerns:  environmental,  political  and
social  issues, international context, historical context,  and  legal
and  ethical  ramifications of decisions.  For this vision  to  become
reality  requires sweeping changes not only in engineering  education,
but also in the environment for the engineering education enterprise.

A  new  engineering education philosophy in conjunction with  profound
cultural changes should provide the environment for the new curricula.
The most important means for change include improved pedagogy, revised
curricula  content,  and  a  process  of  continuous  assessment   and
continuous  improvement.   The overall goal of  engineering  curricula
should  be  to  develop  engineering graduates  who  are  professional
contributors  and  lifelong  learners capable  of  succeeding  in  the
current  and  future  global,  multi-disciplinary  markets.   Further,
engineering  education  must  help  develop  technologically  literate
graduates of non-engineering programs.

Although  the technical component will continue to be the core  of  an
engineering     education,     economic/political/social/environmental
contexts  of engineering will be explicitly addressed.  Emphasis  will
be  placed  on  the critical need for the motivation, capability,  and
knowledge  base  for lifelong learning.  The capability  for  learning
effectively and efficiently benefits an engineering graduate  as  much
as  any capability and should be provided by an engineering education.
Changes  that  help students develop this capability for self-learning
and provide increasing opportunities during their academic program for
practicing this skill are needed.

Engineering  education must be flexible enough to support the  diverse
career  aspirations and needs of our students as well as agile  enough
to enable rapid transformation in response to emerging social demands.
Necessary characteristics include:

    new and highly flexible degree options for students who intend to
  practice engineering;
     new  educational  pathways  for students  who  need  or  want  a
  significant technical component to their education, but who intend to
  pursue non-engineering degrees;
    a broader service role within the university community with some
engineering courses included in the general education requirements for
non-engineering students;  and
     continued  effort  to  understand and respond  to  diversity  in
  learning styles and their implications for student learning.

We need processes whereby curricula within existing departments can be
renewed  more  rapidly.   In  addition, we  need  processes  for  more
dramatic  change,  enabling  curricula to adapt  quickly  to  societal
needs,  analogous  to  flexible and agile manufacturing  techniques.
Just as we need mechanisms for quickly assembling new programs we need
mechanisms for disassembling them when their time is past.  See Figure
1.

                      Comprehensive Restructuring

The challenge for change described in the preceding paragraphs focuses
on  the  college of engineering.  Yet meeting this challenge  requires
comprehensive  change  in the university, including  changes  in  non-
engineering academic units with which engineering students interact as
well  as changes to the campus culture with even broader impact.   The
engineering college is not an island in the campus ocean.

Instituting  the  changes  requires a comprehensive  restructuring  of
undergraduate education.  On each campus, the engineering college must
take  the  lead  in  this comprehensive change that  benefits  all  of
undergraduate  education and requires participation  by  many  sectors
across  the campus.  The goal is a better prepared more competent  and
more  fully contributing graduate fully capable of and confident  with
life-long  learning.   The  diversity  of  the  enterprise   must   be
celebrated          and          not          just          tolerated.

Figure 1.  Flowstream  of  Restructured Engineering Education

This  requires new links and new approaches to rewards and incentives,
assessment and evaluation for faculty and students.

 Faculty Rewards and Incentives

The  quality  of  engineering  education  is  the  responsibility   of
everyone:  students, faculty, and the campus administration.  However,
the faculty play the leading role -- the front line in the delivery of
quality engineering education.  Critical to the quality of engineering
education  is  a faculty that is diverse in cultural and  professional
experiences,  that is committed to lifelong learning and  scholarship,
and  that  places  primary  emphasis on the education  of  engineering
professionals.  In particular, we must develop rewards and  incentives
that  promote the contributions of all faculty and that signal clearly
that they are valued colleagues within their units, their institution,
and society.

The new system of rewards and incentives should:
     recognize the contributions of teaching, advising, research, and
  service;  and
     provide  an appropriate response to contributions that may  have
  received less recognition and remuneration in the past.

Since  the  reward  system is the driving force  which  encourages  or
discourages  faculty  investment in the  effort  necessary  to  reform
engineering education, changing the faculty reward system is critical.

At  most institutions faculty are major players in the faculty  reward
system.   Thus, much of the push for change in the reward system  must
focus  on  the faculty.  Even though this may be difficult since  many
senior faculty were rewarded under the old reward system, overwhelming
evidence tells us the engineering education reward system must change.
Faculties  that  fail  to change will find their engineering  programs
lagging  behind others.  These schools will become followers  and  not
leaders  and  their graduates will find they are at a disadvantage  in
the engineering market place.

Although  faculty are critical agents for change in the  undergraduate
engineering  enterprise, faculty cannot accomplish this change  alone.
It  requires the commitment of the broad academic community (students,
faculty,  and  administration)  in  cooperation  with  industry,   and
government.   The goals and objectives require changes in rewards  and
incentives  that include broad and sweeping initial steps.    We  must
avoid  creating  new  barriers  during  this  transformation  process.
Diverse faculty with diverse interests bring diverse solutions.   Some
faculty  will take strong leadership roles in initiating this cultural
change,  but the system of rewards and recognition must be  structured
to  encourage  the  participation of a  broad  representation  of  the
faculty community and recognize all as valued colleagues.  Rewards and
recognition  must encourage programmatic risk taking without  exposing
individual faculty to undue career risk.

Implementation  and institutionalization of a new reward  system  will
require long term commitment by the community.

Assessment/Evaluation

A  new  system of rewards and incentives requires the use of  existing
assessment techniques and the development of new assessment techniques
for  student learning as well as faculty teaching, advising, research,
and service.  Such techniques should:

     provide feedback to students on what they are learning including
  problem formulation, problem solution, critical thinking, innovative
  design, and creative synthesis;
    motivate further student learning; and
     provide  better  metrics for assessment of  teaching,  advising,
  research, and service.

Assessment  drives  student learning.  The dominant assessment  method
that  focuses on exams and midterms drives students to rote  learning,
memorization,  cramming,  and  manipulation  within  narrowly  defined
problems.   An  appropriate  reward  and  incentive  system   promotes
meaningful learning, actively involving students in making choices and
defining  their  learning  experience.  We  need  new  evaluation  and
assessment   methodologies  focused  on  student   learning   in   new
educational  environments.   These  methodologies  must  support   the
faculty  in  assessing  student learning, the  subsequent  success  of
graduates, and the health of engineering educational programs.

Evaluation and assessment have central roles in the curriculum  reform
process.   We  need new processes for assessing both student  learning
and the effectiveness of our programs.  The educational community as a
whole  should undertake this work, with collaboration between faculty,
undergraduates,  graduate students and industry. NSF  has  shown  its
commitment  to  this  task  by  awarding  prestigious  National  Young
Investigator   awards   to   PIs  taking   rigorous   approaches   to
understanding the teaching and learning process in engineering.

Diversity

Diversity   is   fundamental  to  successful  engineering   education.
Diversity  in  faculty,  the student body, and program  emphasis  must
become part of the future of engineering education.  Institutions need
rewards   and   incentives  that  promote  exemplary   programs   that
demonstrate successful recruitment, mentoring, and retention of  women
and minorities through the senior academic and administrative ranks.

Institutions  also need rewards and incentives for exemplary  programs
that  demonstrate the development of a professionally diverse faculty.
This  includes industrial, international, or government experience  as
well as education beyond engineering.

The  new  engineering curriculum must encourage multiple  thrusts  for
diversity.   It  must  serve  the  needs  of  students  entering   the
undergraduate  educational process on a variety of paths  and  with  a
variety   of   skills  and  backgrounds.   Similarly,  the  curricular
structure  should  assure flexibility to support  the  diverse  career
pathways and goals of students as well as the needs of a student  body
whose   diversity  incorporates  ethnic,  racial,  age,   and   gender
diversity,   and  a  very  wide  diversity  in  learning  styles   and
aesthetics.

Further, undergraduate engineering education must support two  classes
of career aspirations:

    all students who have a motivation to practice engineering;  and
     those who desire a curricular pathway with significant technical
  content,  but focused on various non-engineering career  objectives,
  including  careers  in  K-12 education, public  policy,  management,
  financial services, and health care.

Engineering  education  must  be accessible  to  a  wide  spectrum  of
students  coming to us from diverse pathways.  Colleges of engineering
need to work to make our communities more accessible and responsive to
students   entering  the  educational  process  from   many   gateways
including:   community  colleges,  engineering  technology   programs,
traditional  K-12  gateways,  the displaced  industrial  and  military
workforce, and other returning older students.

Guidance to possible approaches is given by the Foundation engineering
education  coalitions  strong  link to  community  colleges  and  the
Greenfield  engineering education coalitions link to  community-based
technical education programs.

Development of Students

Multiple paths for entry and re-entry to engineering study, as well as
the  diverse needs of students within our programs, require  effective
advising   and   mentoring   processes.   Engineering   faculty,    in
collaboration  with colleagues across the campus, must coordinate  the
education  of  our students beyond engineering topics.  We  must  help
students integrate rather than compartmentalize their education.

Lifelong  learning  has  become an important concept  recognizing  the
rapid  advances in technology over the past 40 years and  anticipating
that technological changes will be no less for the foreseeable future.
Most  engineers  experience several major  job  changes  during  their
career.   Undergraduate engineering programs can no longer ignore  the
fact  that  they  cannot  provide  all  the  necessary  knowledge  for
graduates  to  remain competitive in their careers; they must  educate
the  student  for life, not just for the initial job.   Students  must
know  how  to  learn,  and  must be able to assess  their  skills  and
educational  needs.   This  requires they  have  confidence  in  their
ability  to  satisfy the need for lifelong learning;  this  confidence
must  be accompanied and fortified with a passion for the practice  of
engineering and a zeal for excellence in that practice.

Curricula  should be designed to cultivate a sense of professionalism.
The student follows the lead of the faculty, adapts to change and,  in
fact,  comes to enjoy the challenge of change.  The experience  gained
from   their  passage  through  the  education  process  has  prepared
graduates to be confident, to move forward and to accept the challenge
of change.

Design  clinics  represent one means of achieving such inculcation  of
values  among students.  Harvey Mudd College, the originator of design
clinics and an excellent model of the implementation, recently  hosted
a  DUE-sponsored workshop to help others learn how to effectively  use
this pedagogic device.

Development of Faculty

Faculty  are  role models for students and no role is  more  important
than that of the faculty member as student, learner, and scholar.

Although  individual faculty members have the ultimate  responsibility
for  their  professional  development,  guidance  and  assistance  are
important,  perhaps critical.  Faculty development  opportunities  can
take many forms:

     involving  consultants,  seminars or workshops  which  focus  on
  administration, advising, research, or teaching;
     providing  a variety of opportunities for engineering professors
  to  maintain  engineering  literacy in  scientific  and  engineering
  knowledge,  engineering applications, use of sophisticated  software
  tools, and proficiency with design methodologies;
      developing  opportunities  for  faculty  to  have  or  maintain
  industrial  literacy  involving consulting, industrial  sabbaticals,
  industrial employment, and collaboration with engineers in industry;
  and
     promoting significant multi-disciplinary interactions among  the
  faculty through:  reduced institutional barriers, team teaching, new
  university   structures,  and  recognition   of   multi-disciplinary
  activities in promotion and tenure decisions.

Engineering faculty must take a more proactive role in making industry
aware  that  it is a vital part of the educational process,  including
seeking  active  participation  in  the  design,  implementation,  and
evaluation  of  new  curricula.   This  must  include  an  effort   by
engineering  faculty to work with industry to help them  expand  their
practices for recruiting students, as well as enhance faculty/industry
relationships,  an  area  in  which far more  numerous  and  sustained
programs  of  real interaction are needed.  Further, if  the  emerging
needs  of  our  students are to be met, the faculty as  a  whole  must
incorporate  significant industrial experience.  For example,  a  DUE-
sponsored   project  at  Wytheville  Community  College   is   sending
engineering  technology  faculty  on industrial  internships  to  gain
insights and skills which will enrich their classroom teaching.

The Curriculum:  What We Teach and How We Teach

Students  learn  in  different fashions, some  more  comfortable  with
traditional  lectures,  but  most more receptive  to  active  learning
approaches  that  engage their problem solving  skills  and  nonverbal
cognition  abilities.   Learning-by-doing  is  the  norm   in   many
professional  fields  and  it  should be  an  important  component  of
engineering   education.   However,  current  engineering  instruction
typically  relies  upon  large  lectures,  highly  structured  problem
assignments, and structured examinations for assessment.  The  process
of   engineering  education  should  change  to  use  more   effective
pedagogical approaches and to engage students more effectively in  the
educational enterprise.  Emerging technologies, including multi-media,
computer-based  simulation  and  computer-aided  engineering,  can  be
important   components   in  the  educational   process   along   with
collaborative  learning,  team projects, and  other  student  centered
modes.   We  seek changes that provide improved learning  environments
including:

    active learning; collaborative learning; modular learning;
    research, development and practice experience for undergraduates;
    new physical environments;
    distance learning;
    hands-on learning; and
    integrative learning.

Curricula  are  usually  defined in terms  of  required  and  elective
courses.  The typical course definition focuses on the knowledge to be
mastered and prerequisite requirements.  Most engineering courses  are
inaccessible  to  non-engineering students.  Curricula  for  the  21st
century  should represent holistic education, involving mastery  of  a
limited  set  of  engineering fundamentals, preparation  for  lifelong
learning, and flexibility to allow pursuit of individual student goals
and aspirations.

It  is  impossible  to  define  an engineering  curriculum  applicable
everywhere  in  the nation.  Each school serves its own  constituents,
and we should expect and applaud diversity in curricula and programs.

Assessment and evaluation of the educational process are critical  for
exposing  problems  and  enabling continual improvement.   Traditional
assessment  methods  such  as  student  surveys  of  course   quality,
accreditation processes, and the market demand for graduates should be
augmented  with new approaches.  The current examination, co-sponsored
by  industry and NSFs DUE and EEC divisions,  of Accreditation  Board
for   Engineering  and  Technology  (ABET)  criteria,  processes   and
procedures  signals  a  new  role  for  ABET  in  the  assessment  and
evaluation of engineering education.

Engineering  colleges  must  assume new responsibility  for  promoting
technological  literacy throughout the university.  For engineers  and
non-engineers   alike,   technological  literacy   means   more   than
acquisition  of  technical skills and knowledge, more than  nuts  and
bolts.   It  also  means understanding and appreciating  technologys
evolution  over  time, and technologys cultural, social,  historical,
economic, political, legal and environmental concepts.  The future  of
our  avowedly  technological society depends on greater  technological
literacy.

Engineering  courses  within the engineering discipline  benefit  non-
technical  majors,  analogous  to the  benefits  engineering  students
receive from their experiences within the culture of the liberal  arts
community.   Engineering  faculty should assume  leadership  roles  in
integrating  curricular elements across disciplines,  including  math,
the  physical and social sciences, and the humanities, to better serve
the needs of our students.

Drexel   Universitys  Enhanced  Engineering  Educational   Experience
program,  initiated  with  DUE support,  provides  an  example  of  an
integrated holistic curricular approach to lower division instruction.
The  program has proven so popular that its methods have been expanded
to  encompass the entire freshman class and serve as the basis of  the
Gateway engineering education coalition.

A   DUE  sponsored laboratory improvement project at Western  Kentucky
University provides a model contextual learning experience.   As  part
of   a  biomedical  engineering  curriculum,  students  are  measuring
occupational exposure to chemical and physical stressors not  only  in
student  wood  working and chemistry labs, but in local  manufacturing
plants.   Through  such  methods students can  immediately  grasp  the
importance of their studies to real world applications.

Implementation

Anticipating   the  challenges  of  the  21st  century,  undergraduate
education,  in  partnership with industry, must prepare  leaders,  not
only   of  professional  communities,  but  of  all  segments  in   an
increasingly  technological  society.  Graduates  are,  and  will   be
increasingly, called upon to utilize not only technical knowledge, but
communication skills, managerial and financial capabilities, awareness
of  social implications, and ethical judgment. This breadth of  skills
is needed by graduates who will become effective leaders in areas such
as  advanced  manufacturing, materials and processing,  biotechnology,
infrastructure  enhancement, health care delivery,  and  environmental
preservation.

The  engineering education community is well positioned to foster  the
breadth   expected  of  graduates.   Broadly  defined,  the  community
includes  not  only  engineering  and engineering  technology  faculty
members,  but also industrial professionals who supervise interns  and
cooperative education students, as well as the students themselves  as
active participants, each responsible for his or her own education. In
addition,   this  community  interacts  with  instructional  designers
familiar   with  integrating  advanced  technologies  into   effective
pedagogic  systems, academic support personnel who provide  enrichment
and enhancement opportunities to students, and academic counselors and
advisors  who provide students with information on career options  and
required  coursework.  Thus, in order to  prepare  graduates  for  the
challenges  of  the 21st century, the engineering education  community
must :

  Develop  a  rigorous educational research base on the  teaching  and
  learning of undergraduate engineering topics;
  Restructure   curricula   to  include  integration   of   contextual
  experience,  appreciation for the complexities of  physical  devices
  and  structures,   broad  attention to  learning  environments,  and
  recognition  of  the  differing  backgrounds  and  career  goals  of
  students; and
  Develop  faculty  and organizational structures better  prepared  to
  implement  revised  curricula and laboratories and  to  address  the
  broad range of factors which influence student learning.

Redesigned  engineering  educational systems should  better  meet  the
needs not only of engineers, but also:

  the  large  number  of  students who will use their  backgrounds  in
  engineering  and  technology  to  serve  them  in  their   roles  as
  literate citizens;
  future leaders in industry, academe and government;
  future  teachers  of mathematics, science and technology,  including
  those at the elementary level; and
  future scientists and mathematicians.

We  believe these objectives can be successfully achieved through   an
integrated  systems  approach   to  the  design,  implementation,  and
evaluation  of undergraduate engineering curricula. The objectives  of
this  approach  are  to:  eliminate barriers  caused  by  departmental
boundaries;   achieve  vertical  and  horizontal  integration   within
curricula; foster integration between engineering and other  technical
and  non-technical fields; and promote integration of diverse sets  of
students.    Consequently,  this requires  cooperation  among  faculty
within   a   given  engineering  department  and  faculty  in:   other
engineering departments; science and mathematics; management  science;
humanities;  arts;  and  social science.  Expected  results  of  these
collaborations are determinants of successful teaching and learning at
the    undergraduate   level,   innovative   curricular    frameworks,
comprehensive    faculty   development   activities   to    facilitate
implementation  of  the  new curricula, and enhanced  integrative  and
contextual laboratory activities.

The  interdisciplinary nature of such an integrated  systems  approach
would  be  central  and  particularly challenging  and  would  require
development  by  a multidisciplinary project team and  strong  support
across academic units. Examples that illustrate  some approaches might
include development, implementation, and evaluation  of:
       -   a complete  curriculum that integrates topics from science,
     mathematics, management, English, social sciences and humanities,
     and  from  the  various disciplines of engineering,  created  and
     taught by multidisciplinary teams;
     -   a  new delivery system which integrates the effective use  of
     technology in the curriculum to maximize access to students  from
     underrepresented  groups,  and  to  accommodate  a   variety   of
     backgrounds, learning styles and rates;
     -   engineering-based curricula intended for students planning to
     pursue  career options such as medicine, law, business, and  K-14
     level   teaching,   as  well  as  "engineering   and   technology
     appreciation"  course  sequences  for  non-engineering  students,
     including science and mathematics majors; and
     -  a  unified engineering core and an integrated capstone  design
     experience with active participation by all departments within  a
     college of engineering.

To  be  credible  all  projects would have to  include  the  following
features:

  the  faculty  and institutional support necessary for  systemic  and
  lasting impact;
  close  cooperation of faculty in engineering with faculty  in  other
  disciplines,   including,   for  example,    mathematics,   science,
  management  and the humanities as a multidisciplinary  project  team
  with   multidisciplinary  representation  among   the   co-principal
  investigators;
  mechanisms  to increase the diversity of students who are  attracted
  to and successful in engineering;
  development  of  interpersonal skills such as teamwork,  leadership,
  and sensitivity to multicultural considerations;
  emphasis on developing students' capability to learn on their own;
  development  and  implementation  of  new,  effective  instructional
  methods;
  development  of  instructional materials, such as textbooks,  course
  modules, lab manuals, software and multimedia presentations;
  an  evaluation component with both formative and summative  elements
  to  determine how effectively the project is meeting its  goals  and
  the cost effectiveness of the curriculum;
  dissemination   that   facilitates   widespread   adaptability   and
  increases adoption of the approaches and products developed  in  the
  project;

Additionally,  projects  would be expected  to  have  several  of  the
following elements:

  an  emphasis  on  oral and written communications skills  integrated
  throughout the curriculum;
  a  focus  on projects, experiential learning, and discovery-oriented
  learning  environments to develop student capability to  solve  ill-
  posed and open-ended problems;
  cooperative   relationships  with  industry   involving    students,
  faculty and industrial practitioners as a community of learners;
  development of faculty and training of graduate students (for  those
  institutions  with  graduate programs)  to  improve  adaptation  and
  implementation of effective approaches to teaching and learning;
  initiation   of  new  instructional  and  staffing  paradigms   that
  optimize  efficient  and  effective use of instructional  staff  and
  technology;
  flexibility to enable students to prepare for careers in  a  variety
  of  fields, including medicine, law, business, and teaching, as well
  as engineering;
  interaction  among faculty from education, science, mathematics  and
  engineering  in  a  cooperative activity  to  enhance  K-14  teacher
  preparation;
  a strong component of international education;
  comprehensive  elements to introduce engineering and  technology  to
  students  from non-technical majors, as well as to students majoring
  in science and mathematics.

                         The Reality of Change

For  changes in any of our institutions to endure, the community  must
participate  broadly.  Engineering education is  no  exception.   Each
part  of the community has a role and for each we can identify  tasks,
often to be shared with other parts of the community.

NSF  and  others  provide stimulus for change and  the  leadership  to
begin.  Academic institutions not only implement the changes but also,
in  partnership with the employers of engineering graduates,  seek  to
understand better the educational needs of the student.  Enabling  the
graduate   to  succeed  in  the  current  and  future  global   multi-
disciplinary world depends on this understanding.

                              References

1.     Engineering  Education  and  Practice  in  the  United  States,
Foundations of our Techno-economic Future, Committee on the  Education
and   Utilization   of  the  Engineer,  National   Research   Council,
Washington,  DC  1985.

2.    Education  for  the Manufacturing World of the Future,  National
Academy of Engineering, National Academy Press, Washington,  DC  1985.

3.    Quality of Engineering Education, Final Report of the Quality of
Engineering   Education  Project,  American  Society  for  Engineering
Education, September 1986.

4.    The National Action Agenda for Engineering Education, Report  of
an  ASEE  Task  Force  American  Society  for  Engineering  Education,
Washington,  DC, November, 1987.

5.    Engineering Undergraduate Education, Committee on the  Education
and   Utilization   of  the  Engineer,  National   Research   Council,
Washington,  DC  1986.

6.    Engineering Technology Education, Committee on the Education and
Utilization  of  the Engineer, National Research Council,  Washington,
DC 1986.

7.    Focus  on  the  Future:  A National Action Plan for  Career-Long
Education  for  Engineers,  Report of  the  Committee  on  Career-Long
Education  for Engineers, National Academy of Engineering, Washington,
DC  1988.

8.    Report on the National Science Foundation Disciplinary Workshops
on Undergraduate Education, Workshop on Engineering pages 51-55, April
1989.

9.    New  Challenges in Educating Engineers, Report of  a  Conference
presented by Illinois Institute of Technology, June 10-11, 1991.

10.   Major  Issues in Engineering Education, A working paper  of  the
Board on Engineering Education, National Research Council, Washington,
DC, August, 1993.

11.   Engineering Education in a Changing World, Report of  a Workshop
held  in  Washington, DC, February 24-25, 1994, American  Society  for
Engineering Education, October 1994.

12.   Socioengineering, Norman R. Augustine, Remarks:   University  of
Colorado Engineering Centennial Convocation, October 1, 1993.

13.   Engineers:  The Navigators for a Sustainable Future,  George  E.
Brown,  Jr.,  Representative to Congress from California,  Remarks  at
National Academy of Engineering Symposium on New Directions in Science
and Technology, Washington,  DC, October 7, 1993.
                      Appendix A  Workshop Agenda