Engineering Leaders World Congress on Engineering Education 2013

This paper focuses on the implementation of problem–based learning (PBL) in an engineering program, and argues that implementation of problem-based learning needs to be placed in a context and must be developed with careful consideration of the social, economic, and ethnic diversity of the student population and the university academic culture and prevailing norms. The paper includes a brief history, selected PBL models, strategies to infuse PBL in an engineering program, and suggestions for redesigning classes and courses to catalyze change in the classroom environment through students' engagement. The paper also addresses the potential difficulties that could arise during implementation of PBL, particularly when instructors are new to this instructional method.

Despite the attractive features of ICT in education, and the many advantages that successful use of these technological resources can offer to the education sector in general, their use in engineering educational content delivery is still lagging behind other educational disciplines. In this paper we look closely at the challenges that face full utilization of these technology resources in engineering educational content delivery, the great opportunities that ICT can offer, and actions that can be taken to overcome the challenges. The challenges are exemplified in: the quantitative nature of engineering discipline, lack of awareness of pedagogical use of ICT in education and the lack of clear policy of how and what type of engineering educational content delivery mode can benefit most from available ICT resources. Opportunities available for full utilization of ICT facilities are summarized in: the wide availability of computing resources, high speed internet access and general ICT knowhow among the young generations of both students and instructors among others. Actions to be taken for proper utilization of ICT resources in engineering education are given, and Blended Mode of learning, which combines face-to-face with online learning, is suggested as the most suitable mode for engineering educational content delivery.

Graduating student outcomes are presented, comparing ABET's expectations for Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) baccalaureate graduates and Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) baccalaureate graduates. ABET is a good place to start for the outcomes that engineering and engineering technology students must achieve to be workplace-ready. The Student Outcomes (General Criteria 3) that follow are pretty comprehensive and similar, which is the purpose of this submission.

Engineering and Engineering Technology Comparisons:

• 1.  Engineering 3(a) to Engineering Technology 3B(b.) Outcomes
• • (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
  • b. an ability to select and apply a knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology to engineering technology problems that require the application of principles and applied procedures or methodologies
• 2.  Engineering 3(b) to Engineering Technology 3B(c.) Outcomes
• • (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
  • c. an ability to conduct standard tests and measurements; to conduct, analyze, and interpret experiments; and to apply experimental results to improve processes
• 3.  Engineering 3(c) to Engineering Technology 3B(d.) Outcomes
• • (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
  • d. an ability to design systems, components, or processes for broadly-defined engineering technology problems appropriate to program educational objectives
• 4.  Engineering 3(d) to Engineering Technology 3B(e.) Outcomes
• • (d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
  • e. an ability to function effectively as a member or leader on a technical team
• 5.  Engineering 3(e) to Engineering Technology 3B(f.) Outcomes
• • (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
  • f. an ability to identify, analyze, and solve broadly-defined engineering technology problems
• 6.  Engineering 3(f) to Engineering Technology 3B(i.) Outcomes
• • (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
  • i. an understanding of and a commitment to address professional and ethical responsibilities including a respect for diversity
• 7.  Engineering 3(g) to Engineering Technology 3B(g.) Outcomes
• • (g) an ability to communicate effectively
  • g. an ability to apply written, oral, and graphical communication in both technical and non-technical environments; and an ability to identify and use appropriate technical literature
• 8.  Engineering 3(h) to Engineering Technology 3B(j.) Outcomes
• • (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context
  • j. a knowledge of the impact of engineering technology solutions in a societal and global context
• 9.  Engineering 3(i) to Engineering Technology 3B(h.) Outcomes
• • (i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
  • h. an understanding of the need for and an ability to engage in self-directed continuing professional development
• 10.  Engineering 3(k) to Engineering Technology 3B(a.) Outcomes
• 1. (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice
  2. a. an ability to select and apply the knowledge, techniques, skills, and modern tools of the discipline to broadly-defined engineering technology activities
• 11.  Engineering 3(j) to Engineering Technology 3B(k.) Outcomes
• • These don't closely align:
  • (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues
  • k. a commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement

Globalization has lead to a fundamental change of the paradigms covering our systems of higher education. The so-called Bologna process has initiated fundamental reforms, not only in the content and duration of university study programs, but also in the way application-oriented education is viewed and implemented worldwide – and especially in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). This paper outlines new approaches to allow students to get international and professional experience and project-oriented know-how. A detailed discussion and comparison will be given, including the following educational programs: ISPS – International Study and Project Semester, EPS – European Project Semester, MUTW – Multinational Undergraduate Team Work, and Praxis – the Thematic Network dedicated to project/internship-based teaching and learning. Also presented will be the support system ACE – Academic Clearing-House for Excellence. Although theses programs are open to all types of study areas, currently the emphasis is on the engineering sciences, computer science & engineering, and information technology. All these programs are built around the central idea that state of the art university level education should be a mix of theory-based study programs and industry-oriented practical phases. The final part of this paper will cover the areas of accreditation and evaluation.

The overall goal of this study is to contribute to the advancement of hydrologic education as a multi-faceted discipline. The specific objectives are to deliver visual, case-based, data and simulation driven learning experiences to instructors and students through open source web technologies and community based data and modeling sources. The approach is to use three different regional-scale natural hydrologic systems as educational “observatories” and have the learning experiences embedded within. These hydro-systems (Coastal Louisiana, Florida Everglades, and Utah Great Salt Lake Basin) provide a wealth of hydrologic concepts and scenarios that can be used in many curricula. Several student-centered learning modules are currently under development along with an instructional interface to guide and support the learner and the instructor. The developments also include an instructor's guide containing adaptation and implementation procedures. The web-based modules are intended to be applicable in a wide range of courses, in different programs within institutions, as well as at different levels within the same program. Independent users will test the system to obtain feedback for necessary revisions and enhance the adaptability of the project.

Given the most competitive nature of a global business environment today, an effective engineering management and leadership that supports innovation and entrepreneurship is a critical requirement for all levels of an organization. In view of the ever increasing complexity of contemporary urban systems and services they provide, it is important for planners and leaders to leverage individual and organizational learning processes to assure the highest levels of organizational performance. Development of engineering competence and leadership skills are also extremely important due to a general shortage of engineering talent and the need for mobility of highly trained professionals. Two factors emerge to have the greatest impact on growth and sustainability of the future smart cities and the variety of services they will be able to provide to their citizens: improving managerial, leadership and creative (innovative) skills of city employees, and integrating the concepts of the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines into the instructional training and development of the future smart city workforce. One of the most important factors for success of the above goal is integration of the complex adaptive systems engineering concepts into the smart city planning processes. This paper introduces a complex adaptive system-of-systems engineering approach to leadership and innovation by promoting sustainable STEM education and workforce development through the smart cities initiative. The core STEM leadership and innovation principles are integrated with systems engineering concepts for collaborative development of engineering skills and performance improvements in education, this is critical for modeling and design of the next generation sustainable smarter cities and services.

Engineering education has been recognized globally as the vehicle for national development and global competitiveness. It needs, however, a major re-think in the “ flattening ” world: It is often quoted: “We are currently preparing students for jobs that don't yet exist, using technologies that haven't yet been invented, in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet”.

The distinctive characteristics of the 21st century include: Change –in magnitude as well as velocity and acceleration; depletion of natural resources, both of energy and materials; environmental degradation – of air, water and soil; demand for mass education; significant impact of technology on: society, commerce, lifestyle, education and entertainment; widening disparities in society – digital divide, technology divide, prosperity divide, education divide; social tensions; globalization.

There are significant changes in the practice of engineering as a profession in the 21st century: constraints imposed by environmental considerations; customization demanded by diverse customers; opportunities offered by technology developments in several sectors; availability of sophisticated diagnostic and computational tools; wide choice of materials; implications of globalization, such as innovation as the basis of competitiveness.

The different stakeholders in the engineering system have differing requirements and expectations: employers demand immediate application of knowledge and skills acquired and productivity; students require both immediate employment and long-term employability; parents desire prosperous careers for their wards; and the teachers expect effective learning by students.

Some of the contemporary issues in engineering education include the (generation) gap between: those who teach and those who learn; those who recruit and those who seek jobs; those who frame policies and those who function within the system; and theory and practice of assessment of learning, and of performance on the job. How do we close these gaps?

There are significant reasons for redesigning the engineering education systems in both developed and developing countries: The inputs, output requirements, the environment and ambience, have all changed considerably over the years, and new models of learning have emerged. Innovation and commercialization of university R&D are gaining in importance.

The Indian engineering education system is characterized by: huge size; many asymmetries and divides; diversity (of many types); variable quality; frequent changes of policy; much international collaboration; many strengths and weaknesses; many opportunities and challenges. Several strategies are being put in place to address the different priority areas. Four of the major challenges are: increasing capacity; improving quality; internationalizing engineering education and R&D.

Some of the current tensions include: science vs. engineering as a study option; core engineering vs. IT as job option; private sector vs. public sector careers; generalist vs. specialized institutions/universities; teaching-intensive vs. research-led institutions; capacity expansion vs. quality assurance.

India aims to progress from being a provisional member of the Washington Accord to a full-fledged member, and has accordingly been redesigning its accreditation systems and processes to be Washington Accord compliant. Country-wide awareness and training workshops are being organized. It is intended to bring in legislation to integrate the different accreditation systems in the country, such as technical education, higher education, medical education, and legal education.

Accreditation is a driving force for change in our engineering education systems and processes. It provides a direction to the institution and its faculty, students, and leadership. The mandatory peer review mechanism enables an outside-in view of the institution; an opportunity for review and reflection of the activities and performance, and enables a prioritization of activities. Periodic accreditation prevents complacency and creates an Institution “on the move”. Accreditation processes serve as both change agents as well as catalysts in engineering education, in particular, for promoting quality in all academic systems and processes.

The recent annual publication of World University Rankings by Shanghai University's Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Times Higher Education (THE) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) is having a profound impact on the policies and practices of universities worldwide. Ellen Hazelkorn, in her recent book Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence, 2011, points out that:

1. – “Rankings are arguably having a more profound impact on higher education and the construction of knowledge.”
2. – “HEIs are responding to league tables and rankings (LTRS), which are having an impact or influence — positive or perverse — on institutional behavior, decision-making and actions”.
3. – “Rankings demonstrate the new environment of higher education, and act as a driver of change”.

Long-term thinking is a difficult task that must be undertaken to challenge ourselves to imagine future research, educational and developmental needs. It is difficult but extremely important to imagine the environment for university students and faculty yet to be born, and to think outside the constraints of next year's syllabus or next week's committee meeting. This approach provides us the freedom to think beyond the burdens of problems and challenges knocking the door.

Scanning the future environment, studying the characteristics of the leading comprehensive universities, gathering the opinion of stakeholders and the experience of peers will help to develop and adopt for unpredicted future. This paper focuses on scanning the environment, which the university and its inhabitants will face in the decades to come. Seven environmental scan factors have been identified and summarized based on the imaginative thoughts of futurists gathered through reports, magazine articles, journal papers and web-based materials.

Industrial training or internship is an important part of a study program for an engineering student in all universities in Malaysia. This research explores the students' perception of their experience in industrial training, which includes the management of the industrial training at the universities, self-change, future career development and readiness to be an engineer. A questionnaire was given to 88 third-year engineering undergraduates from one public university and one private university, who had just undergone industrial training. The data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The results show that the engineering students had moderate levels of perception on all the categories, except future career, which showed a low level of perception. This meant that they believed that industrial training had not given them the confidence that they will be able to obtain the future career they want in engineering. Another interesting finding of the research, through a correlational analysis (p < .05), shows that the longer the duration of industrial training, the higher the readiness and future career development among the engineering undergraduates. This may indicate that there is a need to lengthen the duration of industrial training during the study where the popular duration currently in most of the public universities is 10-12 weeks.