CEE New Millennium Colloquium
March 20-21, 2000
Wong Auditorium, Tang Center, MIT Building E51
Reinventing Civil Engineering Education
RONALD SACK, RAFAEL L. BRAS, DAVID E. DANIEL, CHRIS HENDRICKSON, KARL A. SMITH and HERB LEVITAN
NSF Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems
Introduction
Civil engineering, the oldest engineering discipline, is facing unprecedented challenges. The world we live in today is vastly different from that of fifty years ago. Information technology has become ubiquitous in our society, new technologies are emerging, and learning paradigms and cognitive psychology are pointing the way to more effective education. Students are searching for an educational experience that prepares them for a variety of jobs, yet the curriculum and educational paradigm for civil engineers remains virtually unchanged over the past half century. Civil engineering technicians are serving in positions that would have been filled by civil engineering graduates in the past, and other professionals are filling some executive positions that had been reserved for civil engineers. New civil engineering graduates have the lowest engineering starting salaries, and the civil engineer has the bottom median salary of all fields of engineering There is a clarion call to recruit, retain and reward women, minorities and the physically challenged into the profession. It is time to reinvent the educational system so that we can begin to educate tomorrow's civil systems integrators.
Context
The New Millennium presents unprecedented challenges and opportunities for the engineering profession. Globalization of markets and advances in information technology will enable continuous design activity accomplished through international. In addition, entities such as the European Union will catalyze cooperation and interaction among civil engineers across national boundaries, because of the emergence of international building codes, new innovations in design and construction for a sustainable infrastructure, and worldwide needs to sustain environmental quality.
These many challenges and opportunities are accompanied by significant problems. With the reengineering of many companies, the new civil engineering graduate is typically no longer offered a long-term position in the firm, but more frequently is hired for a specific design project, and the appointment may end when the project is completed. With the availability of civil engineering technology graduates from both two- and four-year programs, there is a temptation on the part of employers to hire technology graduates in preference to graduate civil engineers to minimize personnel costs. Today's entry-level positions in civil engineering are among the lowest paid in the engineering profession. The "Engineering Times" (NSPE, 1999) reports that offers for entry-level civil engineers average $36,030, and those for "design engineers" average slightly lower at $34,960. Whereas, offers for entry-level chemical engineers average $47,705. The low ranking of civil engineering salaries continues beyond entry levels, with median income of civil engineers being $66,816 (NSPE, 1999), whereas, chemical engineers have median salaries of $80,000 (the highest paid are petroleum engineers with median income of $102,500).
Some civil engineering graduates use their education as a base to follow diverse career paths in such fields as financial engineering, medicine, management, business, law, public policy and other areas that require the ability to think and act based upon quantitative critical reasoning. Thus some civil engineering graduates are beginning to fulfill new roles that are very different from those of the past. One important role could be to move civil engineers closer to the end user of the products they create, and project them into a new societal role rather than have them continue to serve the function of simply providing enabling technology. Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director of the NSF (Bordogna, 1998), calls for the civil engineer to become tomorrow's civil systems engineer and the master integrator. Only modest growth in traditional civil engineering positions is expected; the U.S. Department of Labor has predicted that the projected number of civil engineering occupations in 2006 will be 231,000, which is an increase of 35,000 jobs over the 1996 level of 196,000 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 1997). Educators and industry must meet the challenge of shaping a new paradigm for educating, training and utilizing civil engineers of the future.
Engineering faces the challenge of attracting more women, minorities and persons with disabilities. For example, in 1995, women received 17.3% of all engineering bachelor's degrees awarded (NSF, 1999); in 1966 only 0.4% of all engineering bachelor's degrees were received by women. The full-time graduate student enrollment by women in engineering was 10.7% of all science and engineering in 1995; civil engineering enrolled 2.6% of women in S&E that year. These statistical trends continue throughout all levels of engineering education. Engineering awarded 11.6% of all doctoral degrees to women in 1995; civil engineering awarded 9.6% of these engineering doctoral degrees to women that year. The workforce, of course, reflects a similar low representation by women, minorities and persons with disabilities. In 1995, 9% of civil and architectural engineers were women, 2% were black, and 4% were Hispanic (NSB, 1998). In that same year, women were paid 86% of the median annual salary of civil and architectural engineers, blacks received 88% of that median annual salary, and Hispanics, 96%. The statistics clearly underline the need for the NSF GPRA (Government Performance and Results Act) outcome goal, "...to enable a diverse, globally-oriented workforce of engineers..." Civil engineering is faced with the challenge to increase the participation of women, minorities and persons with disabilities in the profession.
Change Agents
The NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources has traditionally served to enable all areas of education: K-12; undergraduate; graduate; and life-long learning. The report on "Shaping the Future," contains many excellent recommendations and suggests that NSF needs to accept leadership in these changes (NSF, 1996). The NSF Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program is a five-year old foundation-wide initiative that rewards innovation involving the integration of research and education. The Directorate for Engineering of NSF has been funding educational reform for a number of years through such initiatives as the Engineering Research Centers, the Engineering Coalitions, the Combined Research and Curriculum Development Program, the Action Agenda, and others. Unfortunately, civil engineering has taken a rather passive role in most of the reforms that are transforming many engineering educational experiences. Dr. G. Wayne Clough, President of Georgia Institute of Technology, (Clough, 1997) noted that he has "...been dismayed to find the intellectual thrust in all of the [NSF] coalitions has come with little participation by civil engineers..." He goes on to state that "When new curriculums or interdisciplinary degrees are proposed, civil engineering is noticeably absent from the action." The total curricular reforms by MIT and CMS are notable exceptions to this observation.
An opportunity for civil engineering education change also exists with respect to the accreditation process. The new program "ABET 2000" (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) provides very flexible criteria; wherein, academe specifies their approach and outcomes and is evaluated on how well they achieve their goals. Therefore, ABET now welcomes and encourages educational innovation and reform. It behoves the civil engineering professional organizations to embrace ABET's desire for flexibility, diversity, innovation and change in the education of civil engineers.
In recent years, a growing number of engineering educators have recognized and embraced several imperatives to enhance the undergraduate experience. Dertouzos et. al. (1989) call for a new cadre of students and faculty characterized by: (1) interest in, and knowledge of, real problems and their societal, economic, and political context; (2) an ability to function effectively as members of a team creating new products, processes, and systems; (3) an ability to operate effectively beyond the confines of a single discipline; and (4) the integration of a deep understanding of science and technology with practical knowledge, a hands-on orientation, and experimental skills and insight.
The end of the Cold War has produced an educational change agent, which is accompanied by other major developments, including the explosion of information technology, global economic competition, environmental protection, an aging infrastructure, and the accelerating diversity of the U.S. population. The National Research Council's Board on Engineering Education (BEEd) urges that all engineering institutions should be willing to examine change, with a plan for self-assessment and feedback from industry (NRC, 1995). The NRC posits that self-examination will be accompanied by a need to reform the curriculum and recognize the need for alternatives to the present standard four-year baccalaureate.
The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (Boyer, 1998) has provided many useful insights for undergraduate education in general; these should be examined, modified, and adopted by the civil engineering community. The commission recommends the following "ten ways to change undergraduate education:" (i) make research-based learning the standard; (ii) construct an inquiry-based freshman year; (iii) build on the freshman foundation; (iv) remove barriers to interdisciplinary education; (v) link communication skills and course work; (vi) use information technology creatively; (vii) culminate with a capstone experience; (viii) educate graduate students as apprentice teachers; (ix) change faculty reward systems; and (x) cultivate a sense of community. Furthermore, the Boyer Commission asserts the student "academic bill of rights," as follows: (a) opportunities to learn through inquiry rather than simple transmission of knowledge; (b) training in the skills necessary for oral and written communication; (c) appreciation of arts, humanities, sciences, and social sciences; and (d) preparation for graduate school, professional school, or first professional position. These "rights" are accompanied by the following rights of students in research universities: (a) opportunity to work with senior researchers; (b) access to laboratories, libraries, studios, computer systems and concert halls; (c) options among fields and directions to move within those fields; and (d) interactions with backgrounds, cultures and experiences different from the student's.
Additionally, pedagogical methods are being examined and adapted to engineering education. The evidence clearly shows that student learning is greatly enhanced through collaboration and teamwork. The dynamics of shared student-teacher interaction in a research setting is a strong stimulus for student learning. Cognitive psychology, technology and partnerships with the profession are vital components of reshaping the student learning experience. The educational paradigm should focus on integration, design, manufacture, continuous improvement, teamwork and communication, while maintaining analytical strength. New theories on learning styles exemplified by concepts such as "multiple intelligences," advanced by Gardner (1993) have fostered new paradigms for learning in engineering education. Smith and Waller (Campbell, et al., 1997) point out the old and new paradigms of college teaching. We see evidence of innovative engineering education in forums such as "Frontiers in Education;" wherein, faculty articulate such themes as to how Bloom's taxonomy has been followed to advanced steps of synthesis to affect design solutions. Such eminent scholars as Herbert A. Simon (1999) point to the progress of teaching design in the engineering curricula. The dynamics of shared student-teacher interaction in a research setting is a strong stimulus for student learning.
Roadmap for Change
The challenge lies in formulating a bold new vision for civil engineering in the next 20 to 50 years, with innovation as the core change theme. Typically, innovation is accompanied by disruption. For example, the finite element method totally transformed the way in which systems are designed, and the transistor completely disrupted the vacuum-tube industry. We need to forge partnerships between all stakeholders: educators; practitioners; cognitive psychologists; and experts in information technology. We should recognize that civil engineers design, construct and operate facilities; they must have an understanding and orientation toward total systems. Since computers replace human repetitive function, it is necessary that engineers exercise systems thinking (Valenti, 1996).
If the professional roles of civil engineering graduates are to be changed and enhanced, the community needs to move through a series of fundamental steps: 1) posit the bases for change; 2) identify and implement the change agents; and 3) assess the outcomes. All stakeholders should participate in the changes so we assure that the graduates will have a role in society as tomorrow's master integrators by using sound pedagogical practices and engaging appropriate technology.
The intellectual content of the learning process must be examined and defined. We need to recognize civil engineering as an integrative process in which analysis and synthesis are supported with sensitivity to societal need and environmental fragility. Analysis should be understood as critical thinking that underlies problem definition and is derived from an in-depth understanding of the physical, life, and mathematical sciences, as well as the humanities and social sciences. We should encourage innovation and synthesis by creating and implementing useful systems and products, including their design and construction or manufacture. And civil engineers should have a contextual understanding, wherein they appreciate and understand the economic, industrial and international environment in which civil engineering is practiced and combine this insight with the ability to provide effective societal leadership.
Wm. A. Wulf (1998) suggests the new fundamental engineering themes consist of information technology, biological materials and the need to design under constraints such as global cultural and business contexts.
Emerging transcendent technologies such as information technology, systems design, sustainability, the environment, and biotechnology will dominate the attention of future civil engineers. But we must note that there are other technologies that could play a strong role in tomorrow's world such as the issues associated with the movement of goods in a global economy. The list of emerging technologies certainly needs discussion and development. Nonetheless, tomorrow's civil engineering professional must have the capability to plan, design, construct and operate civil engineering systems in the context of the dominate thematics. It is imperative that civil engineers have an understanding and mastery of domain-specific knowledge and the ability to operate at the systems level since they will be the ultimate managers of technology. Their capabilities should include the ability to interpret data, deal with ill-defined problems and understand the societal context of their work. They must design with an understanding of development and sustainability. Their professional responsibility is generally the service infrastructure. Understanding and using information technology will be an underlying theme for all of future society, but the civil engineer will be obligated to have a mastery of the technology. Effective oral and written communication skills continue to be requisite for the civil engineer; it will be incumbent upon tomorrow's master integrators to communicate throughout the chain of design, as well as with suppliers, economists, venture capitalists, and also articulate civil engineering systems to the public and private sectors, which are the customers of the designs.
Civil engineering education of the future must be sufficiently flexible to enable graduates to pursue diverse career paths in areas such as finance, medicine, law, public policy, management and administration. We must recognize the greater diversity in backgrounds, interests and talents of entering engineering students and respond by exposing students to a wide range of topics, while introducing them to the rigors of the field. The civil engineering baccalaureate must provide adequate knowledge in basic topics such as the principles of mechanics, material behavior and environmental science; students must be encouraged to focus on these topics, with an understanding that the skills and concepts learned can be transferred to other domains. Furthermore, significant flexibility must be provided in any curriculum beyond the electives in humanities and the social science so that students have the opportunity to explore breadth and attain individual educational goals. For example, the curriculum could entail a broader fundmental education that includes more liberal arts and business followed by specialized education in civil systems engineering.
There must be opportunities to learn through inquiry rather than simple transmission of information. That is, active learning and student involvement should become the modus operandi, and problem-based and inquiry-based learning should be ubiquitous throughout the learning communities at universities. Integration and synthesis will be the primary responsibility of tomorrow's civil engineer, and they must have inclusiveness with the core context of civil infrastructure systems. Integration skills and adaptive systems thinking will be at the core of their understanding. With their new role as the ultimate managers of technology, civil engineers must have strongly developed leadership and entrepreneurial skills. And, professionals of the future must have a sense of satisfaction and excitement about their profession.
Change in civil engineering learning can occur in many forms varying from working with the ABET 2000 process to complete reform of the entire curriculum. "The biggest and most long-lasting reforms of undergraduate education will come when individual faculty or small groups of instructors adopt the view of themselves as reformers within their immediate sphere of influence, the classes they teach every day," (Cross, 1993). Examples of reform include the "Sooner City Project" (Bert, Prism) that consists of a context design theme threaded through the curriculum. MIT has also incorporated integrated design experience through a coordinated series of courses from sophomore through senior years making engineering a creative and synthesizing endeavor. In addition, there are numerous examples of client-based design problems specifically embedded in the senior capstone design experience, and there are multi-year design/research teams that include students at different levels, from freshman to senior, working together on a project. The process for change can assume many forms such as experimenting and assessing by: (a) class; (b) curriculum; or (c) meta-curriculum.
Any proposed reforms must be accompanied by an assessment plan. It will be necessary to generate, by consensus, indicators of progress and success in achieving proposed objectives. That is, departments suggesting reforms should identify: a) the specific needs and the bases for change; b) the actions required to affect the changes; c) "agents" for such change (i.e., those who need to participate, contribute and collaborate); d) assessment of the desired characteristics of the educational outputs; and (e) distribution of the results and integration of the changes beyond the boundaries of the participating institutions. Effective changes will require actions by all constituencies: the institutions; industry; professional societies; government; governmental-industry-university cooperatives; ABET; and other groups in the engineering community.
Summary
The context and existing change agents mandate that we should initiate significant improvements in civil engineering education. Our society is being shaped by elements that are very different from those that existed when the Grinter report (ASEE, 1955) prescribed the approach that civil engineering education has been pursuing for almost a half century. Information technology is now ubiquitous and an entire field of cognitive science has begun to define how people learn. The profession of civil engineering and civil engineering education should conduct a self-examination, recommend actions and implement a plan, along with a methodology for assessing distributing the outcomes.
References
Bert, Ray (1998), "Designing Sooner, Not Later," ASEE Prism, Dec., pp. 18-19.
Bordogna., J. (1998), "Tomorrow's Civil Systems Engineer-The Master Integrator," ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, April, pp. 48-50.
Boyer Commission (1998), "Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities," 44 pages, New York. http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf
Campbell, W.E. and K.A. Smith, Ed. (1997), New Paradigms for College Teaching, Interaction Book Co. Edina, MN, ISBN0-0939603-26-8, 281 pages.
Clough, G.W.(1997), "What Civil Engineers Can Learn by Looking Outward," ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Jan., p. 2.
Cross, K. P. (1993), "On college teaching." Journal of Engineering Education, Jan., pp. 9-14.
Dertouzos, M.L., R.K. Lester, R.M. Solow, and the MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity (1989), Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press., p. 157.
Gardner, H. (1993), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York, ISBN 0-46502509-0, 440 pages.
National Research Council (1995), "Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System," Board on Engineering Education, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 79 pages.
National Science Board, (1998) "Science & Engineering Indicators-1998, NSB 98-1, Feb.
National Science Foundation (1996), "Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in SME&T," NSF 96-139, May, 76 pages.
National Science Foundation (1999), "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1998," NSF 99-338, Feb., 330 pages.
National Society of Professional Engineers (1999), Engineering Times, "Engineering Income Outpaces Inflation By 3%, NSPE Survey Says," vol. 21, no. 6, June, pages 1 and 10.
Simon, H.A. (1999), "Using Computers to Teach Design," Bridging the Generations: The Future of Computer-Aided Engineering, Garrett, J.H., Jr., D.R. Rehak, Editors, Dept. of Civil and Env. Eng., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, ISBN 0-9667859-0-8, pp. 279-287.
U.S. Department of Labor (1997), "National Industry-Occupation Employment Projections 1996-2006," U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment Projections, Washington, D.C.
Valenti, M. (1996), "Teaching Tomorrow's Engineers," Mechanical Engineering, ASME, Washington, D.C., July, pp. 64-69.
Wulf, Wm. A. (1998), "The Urgency of Engineering Education Reform,"
The Bridge, Spring 1998, pages 1-8.