challenge to change: On realizing the new paradigm for engineering education, The

Journal of Engineering Education, Apr 2003 by Splitt, Frank G

ABSTRACT

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 areas of engineering school scholarship. There is considerable concern that perpetuation of the old paradigm by engineering schools will all but assure minor roles for engineers in the future as well as difficulty in adapting to the exigencies of the fast-paced global marketplace. However, the transition from the old to the new paradigm will not be easy since many of our research-intensive universities are faced with financial pressures while the wherewithal to make the change rests mostly with those who oppose the change in the first place. This situation, coupled with the fact that there is no "one-size-fits-all" transition paradigm, represents the challenge to change. Still, a number of engineering schools have made significant changes and have developed innovative approaches in their undergraduate programs. Taken together, the proven methodologies and knowledge gained should make it possible for most engineering schools to devise revitalization programs that fit the context of their institution, its student body, faculty, and objectives. This paper argues for a study to assess the impact of the tools and methodologies developed by pace-setting engineering schools and the NSF Engineering Education Coalitions to lay the foundation for future reform initiatives.

I. INTRODUCTION

The introduction of Engineering Criteria 2000 by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) [1] and, beginning in the early 1990s, the funding of a number of programs related to systemic engineering education reform by the National Science Foundation (NSF) [2] are considered seminal events on the path to a new paradigm for engineering education. The 1998 Engineering Foundation Conference (EFC'98)-Realizing the New Paradigm for Engineering Education-co-chaired by Edward W. Ernst, University of South Carolina, and Irene C. Peden, University of Washington, provided further impetus to engineering education reform. At EFC'98, Ernst reminded the participants that intense discussions beginning in the late 1980s, coupled with several conferences, workshops and studies "produced a consensus about what engineering education should be-what the stakeholders expect in the content of the curriculum, innovative approaches to teaching, and involvement of students. Achieving the change needed in engineering programs across the country has become the current barrier that must be surmounted for engineering education to realize the new paradigm for engineering education and to serve the stakeholders even better" [3].

One purpose of EFC'98 was to highlight a new program, Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering Education Reform, that stemmed from recommendations made at a July 1995 workshop convened by the NSF's Engineering Directorate [4], just after the publication of authoritative reports on engineering education reform by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) [5] and the National Research Council (NRC) [6]. This new NSF program was to encourage proposals from the engineering education community [7]. However, following the conference changes at the NSF Engineering Directorate led to changes in programmatic emphasis, and the Action Agenda Program was discontinued.

Achieving change via engineering education reform presents a formidable challenge. It is part of the overarching challenge of change, faced by universities and colleges throughout our nation, as described by Duderstadt [8] in his comprehensive analysis of the issues and the need for new paradigms. Others have provided additional perspectives [9, 10]. This is a complex age of rapid change where different points of view and conflicting interests characterize the stakeholders who often resemble disconnected parties. Achieving change will not be easy given academe's bias toward preservation of the status quo where publications and research funding drive rewards and recognition. In the early 16th Century, Niccolo Machiavelli, a preeminent political observer and analyst, captured the essence of this type of situation when he wrote in The Prince: "There is nothing more difficult, to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."

This paper is an updated version of the second part of a trilogy on engineering education reform [11]. In contrast to the first paper [12] that focused on environmentally smart engineering education, this paper addresses change related to the totality of attributes that define the new paradigm. The trilogy also includes a paper titled "Engineering Education Reform: A Path Forward." The purpose of the present paper is to provide some historical perspectives while renewing the call for a new paradigm in engineering education. The various stakeholders in the future of engineering education-administrators, faculty, students, parents, industry and government leaders, as well as many others-will hopefully better see the shape and dimensions of the dilemma in which they are immersed, be stimulated to debate, and motivated to continue acting along workable paths to implement widespread reform to ensure the vitality and currency of engineering education in the United States.