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