Chesley Bonestell, “The Exploration of Mars” (1953), oil on board, 143/8 x 28 inches, gift of William Estler, Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Reproduced courtesy of Bonestell LLC.

Events

Does Engineering Education Need a Revolution?

The basic structure of engineering education was set in 1955 and hasn’t changed much since. Rather than hands-on problem solving, classes emphasize theory, while a “pipeline mindset” perpetuates a system designed to keep people out rather than welcome them in. How can engineering schools connect their curricula to solving the broader social justice, equity, and environmental issues that motivate today’s students? 

What does an inclusive curriculum that teaches problem-solving for the real world look like? Can the engineering “pipeline” be replaced with a system that encourages learners from all backgrounds? And what can universities do to better support faculty members while incentivizing great teaching?

On December 17 at 3:00 PM ET, join past president of the American Society for Engineering Education Sheryl Sorby, current ASEE executive director Norman L. Fortenberry, and Gilda Barabino, president of the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, for a discussion moderated by Chemical & Engineering News science news editor Jessica Marshall on what it will take to prepare tomorrow’s engineers for our digital, diverse, global, and rapidly changing society.

Does Engineering Education Need a Revolution? from SFIS @ ASU on Vimeo.

Live Chat Transcript

Kimberly Quach: HI everyone, thank you for joining us! We’ll get started in a few minutes. Please use this chat to share your thoughts and use the “Q&A” feature to share questions with the panelists.

Kimberly Quach: If you haven’t already, check out the essay that spawned this conversation: https://issues.org/engineering-education-change-sorby-fortenberry-bertoline/

Tanveer Sayed: Are there any user groups were we can all meet to discuss ideas after this forum I find there’s a big disconnect about how we go about making these changes after a lecture

Lisa Margonelli: That is a great idea.

Lisa Margonelli: At Issues and CSPO we will think about this. We will follow up with a link to the video on Monday.

Skip Rochefort: Olin had no tuition early on so parity might have been easier. Dr. Barabino mentioned affordability. How is Olin handling that now that it is no longer free.

Tanveer Sayed: I find the hiring process is also skewed being a person of colour its expected to have twice the education of the status quo

Laura Heinse: Good analogy.

Kathleen Sanchez: Nice point

Tanveer Sayed: The professors don’t reflect the student base

Bruce Savage: Individual faculty can change how they teach (academic freedom).  Change on the individual level will drive global change.  What to change the system?  Change yourself.

Tanveer Sayed: The system is broken it needs a revolution

John Eldon: Revolution or evolution?

Bruce Savage: Great video on how we learn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgwIhB58PA

Kathleen Sanchez: Yes, career pathways will bring and engage more diverse students who are motivated to make change

Zahid Qureshi: “Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.” ―Rumi

Milo Koretsky: Yes we need to switch from a framework of technical to sociotechnical

John Eldon: IEEE tagline = “Advancing Technology for Humanity”

John Eldon: We need to emphasize that.

Tanveer Sayed: Revolution

Nancy Holmes: Engineers Without Borders is a step in the social-good direction

Kathleen Sanchez: Nice

Skip Rochefort: Schools like Northwestern and Purdue have started the design process for First Year Students and have integrated the math, chemistry, physics in these programs…..but this takes administrative support for this process change and for faculty support.

Candy Cordwell: Thank you for sharing the YouTube video on styles of learning

John Eldon: UCSD now has one hands-on project course for every undergrad year.

Christopher Papadopoulos: @Milo, yes!

Jon Wade: I think it should be technical social systems, as the ultimate objective is social impact.

Skip Rochefort: EWB is OK, but it is very water based (not new technologies related to energy) and limited number of students. EWB National is very controlling.

Nancy Holmes: @Skip Rochefort – thank you for this insight

Maxine Scheer: I am a parent of a college student, a freshman studying mechanical engineering. How do I determine if a college is part of this status quo or if they are embracing these ideas of project based learning? Is there some kind of way innovative engineering educators identify themselves?

Bonita Burke: My PhD was in plasma physics and fusion energy: my biggest challenge was how I was treated and how I wasn’t always recognized for the quality of my contributions (for me)

Jon Wade: At UCSD we are creating a masters program in cyber-physical social systems.

John Eldon: UCSD’s “Global Ties” is “Engineers W/o Borders” for undergrads.

Joe Bradley: Echoing what Dr. Barabino and Dr. Marshall mentioned regarding having the focus on humanity. I have been conducting reflection essay in my design classes for about 7 years. Several of the women in the class have mentioned that our focus  on the humanity of engineering in the class impacted their desire to remain in engineering.

Skip Rochefort: Purdue has always been a leader in these areas, such as their First Year Engineering program. Their administration embraced this many years ago.

James McLaughlin: Immersion is SO valuable, across the business spectrum of responsibilities beyond just science or design.

Skip Rochefort: Is ABET the problem…or the solution?

Yvette Pearson: ABET is not the problem. ABET sets criteria and leaves it up to the program to decide how to meet them, then evaluates the programs based on that.

Yvette Pearson: ABET provides TONS of opportunities for programs to innovate. We just don’t approach it that way!

Mirna Mattjik: +1 @Dr Sorby…Can the panelist comment on interdisciplinary courses

Brian Dick: I have seen considerable shift in engineering education at many institutions in Canada.  It is slow, but is happening (albeit as a retrofit to the current structure).  Design spine throughout the curriculum; project-based learning, ethics, etc… from the start.  Many more professors of teaching hired as a career path.  Certainly the conversation is encouraging

Tanveer Sayed: More courses and stackable options means more money many administrations don’t want to do

Christopher Papadopoulos: I suspect that the straight-jacket of our current system is based on economics of both money and time.  Will we hire enough faculty and mentors to coach students through a more flexible system?

karen wilken: But faculty believe they do what they do because of ABET – programs are content centered – and faculty feel the content needs to be covered and can’t be altered or ABET accreditation might be impacted.  It’s a fear and an excuse that seems to paralyze the field.

Vicki Stieha: We have a small program at Boise State that uses the stackable credentials option and we have a far more diverse population in that program than any of our other programs. We also feature engineering design to address social/humanistic issues in three years.

Yvette Pearson: @Dr. Gilda: User-centered design – applied to curriculum

James McLaughlin: Is the experienced engineering voice also incorporated (via stories)?

James McLaughlin: Ultimately, engineers are involved across the business spectrum. We need students to appreciate this, even if not specifically trained in other aspects.

James McLaughlin: Young engineers need to appreciate that they are part of an economic holism. Usually this takes years to comprehend. How can this be done sooner?

Jon Wade: I think that the straitjacket of research based tenure success criteria has a great impact on how faculty allocate their time between research and education.  We get what we reward.

Zahid Qureshi: Dr Norman talked about teaching Engineering Ethics, which is an essential topic to teach engineers to help them understand their responsibility to society when designing new technologies. Engineering students should also be taught Philosophy and Ethics of Technology. I just completed a very interesting and useful online course offered by the University of Twente. Philosophy of Technology and Design https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/philosophy-of-technology/6/todo/85442

Ekundayo Shittu: It is imperative to understand that what drives what we do/teach is the demand from the society. The traditional fields have largely remained unchanged because the fundamentals have not though it seems there are seismic changes in “who” the society sees as a rounded product. To what extent do see the future as one where siloed knowledge (specialization) no longer takes precedence? How can we reform engineering education for that future?

John Dennis: The environmental impact statement process is a way to engage others productively in the conceptual development process – how is the role of environmental analysis incorporated in teaching?

James McLaughlin: Yes, @John, as one of many areas of responsibility.

Christopher Papadopoulos: Should a BS in engineering be viewed as a professional degree or a pre-professional degree?

Jon Wade: @Ekundayo That is a very good point.

Viktor Grinchenko: Changes in the educational process must take into account the growing role of AI as an assistant to the engineer in his daily work.

Jamie Rogers: I strongly agree that ABET is not the problem. Yvette, Norm, & Sheryl are absolutely correct!  If you are a member of one of the 35 ABET member societies you and WE are ABET.

James McLaughlin: If ABET is not addressing the whole engineer we need, we need it to evolve and to augment it where needed. How can we?

James McLaughlin: Yes, we’ve evolved the definition! Who’s rewriting that definition?

Yvette Pearson: @James: ABET criteria currently have PLENTY of opportunities to do this. Folks just don’t do it… or don’t know HOW to do it and won’t reach out to explore how to do it.

Nancy Holmes: @Dr. Sorby: is there evaluation (and accessible reports) of how the ASEE Diversity Recognition Program has changed individual institutions’ cultures of DEIB?

Christopher Papadopoulos: Another constraint that I have heard is that the curriculum should cover the topics on the FE exam.  To what degree is this true and should it be true?

Skip Rochefort: We have a Humantarian Engineering minor which is a strong attractor for women and BIPOC students. Shouldn’t EVERY engineering major be humanitarian? And how do we stress that?

James McLaughlin: @Yvette, practicing engineers need to help push programs beyond the previous boundaries.

Bruce Savage: Diversity is very important.  But let’s not forget that only two categories to define diversity isn’t very diverse.

Jon Wade: Tenure track faculty are not normally appropriately rewarded for innovative education.

Yvette Pearson: @James: Absolutely! We have to work together!

James McLaughlin: 👍

Yvette Pearson: @Bruce: Spot on! And if we don’t have foundations of equity and justice, we cannot achieve and sustain diversity and inclusion.

James McLaughlin: Where or how does ABET bring practicing engineers into the discussion as a way to push?

Beth Cady: @Skip – yes the humanitarian engineering program should be the normative language across engineering education rather than a separate program or a minor, which sends the message that other engineering isn’t humanitarian. How can we change that language?

Bruce Savage: @Yvette.  Agreed – and foundations of equity and justice is best found through opportunity for those willing.

Skip Rochefort: Mandatory Co-op programs seem to have gone out of favor. Why?

Alex Friess: What is the role of secondary education to support this transformation of engineering education?

James McLaughlin: @Skip, I’m shocked to hear that. The opposite of what’s needed.

Yvette Pearson: @James: Many ABET member societies (such as ASCE) have practitioners who are PEVs, team chairs, commissioners, etc. Those of us who are in those roles (I’m a Commissioner for EAC) from both industry and academia have the opportunity to provide input. Also, when professional societies provide input on accreditation changes – for both general and program criteria – practitioners have an opportunity to engage. ASCE is my ABET member society and I work hand-in-hand with practitioners on many education initiatives – including accreditation. I’m happy to speak more offline about how you or others may become more involved!

Jesenia Cadena: @Skip I prefer students have a choice of what type of practical experience they receive. For some, it might be intense research that leads to publishing; or for others it’s clinical experiences

Ekundayo Shittu: I wish I could speak to this panel. Frankly, it boils down to the economics of education. If the demand is there, the system will change/evolve sequentially. For as long as students require $200,000+ to earn their bachelors’ degrees, the question will always revolve around the pay-back. It may be about the innovative preparation for the students. How do we train these students to be (I) creators of opportunities? (ii) to see values in addressing societal challenges that equally offer measurable returns, etc. The bang for the buck must be worthwhile.

Zahid Qureshi: Dr. Norman talked about teaching Engineering Ethics, which is an essential topic to teach engineers to help them understand their responsibility to society when designing new technologies. Engineering students should also be taught Philosophy and Ethics of Technology. I just completed a very interesting and useful online course offered by the University of Twente.

Nancy Holmes:  In this engineering revolution, what are the roles and opportunities for student groups such as chapters of Society of Black Engineers, Society of Women in Engineering, SACNAS, etc.?

Beth Cady: This is the report that Dr. Fortenberry just referenced: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12636/developing-metrics-for-assessing-engineering-instruction-what-gets-measured-is

Tanveer Sayed: There’s a-lot of exploitation in research work and publications where professors do very little and students are expected to do research and won’t pass until the professor decides

Kathleen Sanchez: Yes, echoing the changes for faculty evaluations of mentoring and participating in DEI issues very important

Kathleen Sanchez: Important to start to document participating in these activities among current faculty.

Todd Vanek: Our institution (Washington State University) just added a component in the faculty T/P review called “Institutional Priorities” which DEI is one component of. I think it is a start!

Kathleen Sanchez: Wow.  Nice reflection.

Jon Wade: That is critical part of the problem!  Well said!

Bob Gloyd: Hear ye hear ye. THANK YOU!!!

Joe Bradley: YES, Dr. Barabino

donald day: ASEE has about 4% Community College faculty.  But CC’s see about 30% or  more of potential engineering students.  Is ASEE elitist?

Norman Fortenberry: ASEE would welcome more CC faculty as members.  We need help better communicating what we have to offer and learning how better to serve their needs.  We do have an active Community College Division.

Yvette Pearson: @Beth: Thank you! Great seeing you here!

Patricia Hogan: Dr. Sorby is dead on. I made these same arguments when I was 17 and a freshman chemical engineering student. Now, two engineering degrees and two science degrees, including a PhD, and 50 years of technical experience later, I am hearing these same arguments being made here. I think the inertial force of the engineering education enterprise–including how engineering faculty are evaluated for promotion and tenure–is being underestimated here.

James McLaughlin: Right on, ma’am!

Jeff Walters: I love it: let the problem drive Interdisciplinarity

Milo Koretsky: Absolutely. If we expect to create engineers who are effective and inclusive team members, we need structures where we, as faculty, can model that.

Beth Cady: Hi Yvette! Great to see you too!

Maxine Scheer: As a parent taking out the Parent Plus loans to fund my student’s engineering degree, I appreciate Ekundayo Shittu’s comment about payback. The Deans and other educators could do more to speak to parents about how students can gain the most value and speak to how we can support goals that would improve innovation in engineering education.

Kendra Mingo: A *great example* of Dr. Sorby and Prof. Barabino’s point is the design and engineering challenges around building design and Helena van Vliet’s work on bird collisions and biophilic design. https://www.helenavanvliet.com/

Emma Frow: I’m a social scientist jointly appointed with the BME department at Arizona State University. (Which has an initiative underway to set up joint faculty appointments across engineering and the social sciences) Happy to chat with anyone interested in the details of really doing interdisciplinary work and teaching! [email protected]

John Eldon: Thank you Dr. Fortenberry — master a smaller amount of material instead of smattering a larger amount

Patrick Cunningham: Thank you, Dr. Fortenberry. Coverage of a topic does not equal learning. And yes, it is not a dichotomy, rather it is both-and. And thank you Dr. Sorby.

Milo Koretsky: ^^

Beth Cady: Thank you all!! This has been fantastic!!

Sarah Rovito: Seconding – an absolutely fantastic conversation!

Joe Bradley: Thank you all

Kathleen Sanchez: Great conversation here.  Public health professional and hoping for these great ideas get implemented and these boundaries between engineers and other disciplines come together.  Thank you all for this inspiration

Jamie Rogers: Thank you for this important conversation!

Jon Wade: We do know what needs to be done.  How we change the factory culture and systems (departments, tenure, batch processing of students) is the question.  Will market forces make this happen?

Kimberly Quach: Thank YOU to everyone in chat! Your thoughts and links really added to this conversation!

Brian Dick: Thank you all – It has been great to listen to the panelists, and read the discussion in chat

Maxine Scheer: Engineering for Everyone is a great concept

Tony Perry: https://e4usa.org/ is doing some of this work in K-12 (and on some campuses)

Mustafa Demircioğlu: Thanks for your discussion on a better education

Patricia Hogan: Thank you–very interesting panel! Great comments in the chat too!

Yvette Pearson: Engineering Change Podcast: https://engineeringchangepodcast.com

Beth Cady: Yes! A great podcast!!

Yvette Pearson: Thank you Beth!

Eduardo N Tovar: Love the concept. Wish I would have had the “open” engineering and encouragement when I went through undergraduate school.

Tom Zajdel: Thank you everyone! I love the focus on social justice work, and how we can use engineering to build a better society.

Erica Wortham: Thank you, all, hosts and panelists.  Revolution is on!

Keep the conversation going on Twitter by following @ISSUESinST. And stay up-to-date on the latest news and events from Issues with our free digital newsletter.