Turning students into professionals: Types of knowledge and ABET engineering criteria

Journal of Engineering Education, Jul 2002 by Gorman, Michael E

ABSTRACT

In order to implement the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) engineering criteria, it is important for engineering educators to understand different types of knowledge and how these types relate to the outcomes described in Criterion 3. This paper first provides a heuristic for framing a program's educational objectives by identifying exemplars of the types of engineers a program seeks to graduate. Three sections then follow, each addressing categories of knowledge: tacit knowledge, four types of knowledge that can either be tacit or explicit, and knowledge created and shared in teams. Examples of the relationship of traits of knowledge to the outcomes in Criterion 3 are provided. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of how these types of knowledge are imbued in engineering students at the University of Virginia, as well as suggestions for additional ways in which they could be infused into engineering curricula.

I. INTRODUCTION

As is evident in Criterion 3 of the engineering criteria of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), engineering students need to graduate with a complex set of skills and abilities as described in outcomes (a)-(k). These skills and abilities are the observable evidence of the knowledge gained from their education. When framing a program's educational objectives and defining its outcomes consistent with ABETs engineering criteria, educators need to be mindful about the different types of knowledge that graduates must have to address the complex problems they will face.

This paper first presents a heuristic for developing a program's educational objectives and outcomes based on using heroes or heroines as exemplars. It is a less traditional approach, and certainly not the only approach a program could use. However, this approach is offered as a way in which programs could think about the characteristics they seek to imbue in their students and it also illustrates the complexity of imbuing all of the outcomes of Criterion 3 in engineering graduates.

Next is an extensive discussion of categories of knowledge, organized into three sections: tacit knowledge, four types of knowledge that can be either tacit or explicit, and knowledge created and shared in teams. Presumably, engineering programs seek to create experts, and experts employ considerable tacit knowledge. Thus, the discussion about knowledge begins with a description of the tacit knowledge of experts and a protocol for making that tacit knowledge more explicit to those who wish to become experts. The paper then presents four types of knowledge: information, skills, judgment, and wisdom. Engineering students need all four types of knowledge; they are implicit to the ABET engineering criteria. Finally, the discussion about knowledge concludes with a focus on knowledge created and shared in teams. The solution to engineering problems requires collaborative efforts and this section discusses issues about knowledge within and across teams.

The paper concludes with a brief discussion of how the engineering program at the University of Virginia seeks to imbue these different traits of knowledge in its graduates, and offers some suggestions for other means to incorporate them into engineering education.

II. A HEURISTIC FOR DETERMINING PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

One heuristic for framing educational objectives and developing outcomes is to identify exemplars of the kinds of engineers a program wants to produce. In other words, identify heroes and heroines.

In his first day on the job as a newly-graduated engineer, Taft Broome's supervisor and project manager left to take care of other emergencies. Broome was confronted with a man he described as "like a sumo wrestler with a bad attitude" [5, p. 54] who had concrete to pour. Broome said he had been given no instructions concerning where it should go. The man threatened to dump it right where his trucks stood. Broome knew he could shrug, let the concrete be dumped, and everyone would know it was not his fault. Instead, he felt it was his duty to figure something out. He studied blueprints in the trailer and decided where the concrete ought to go.

Broome argues that this adventure mirrors the hero (and heroine) quests discussed by Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell [17]. According to Campbell, mythical heroes, like Odysseus and the Knights of the Round Table, must grow personally to succeed at their quests. In Broome's case, he had to decide whether he was an engineer who would accept challenges and take responsibility, or one who would wait for dear instructions from someone else before taking action.

Broome applied this hero/heroine heuristic when he conducted a workshop on ethics for engineering students preparing to take the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. As he described it:

I convened the workshop by passing out a trial examination in professional ethics. Instead of lecturing on ethics as I had planned, it occurred to me to ask the students to take the examination. F"teen minutes later, they had finished. Then I asked them to think of an aged, highly mature person: a family member or some legendary character, someone who exhibited great wisdom and caring for others. Then I asked the students to re-do the examination, but this time putting their sage in the position of test taker. Finally,