The Future of Engineering Education

In the traditional approach to teaching, the professor lectures and assigns readings and well-defined

Convergent single-discipline problems and the students listen, take notes, and solve problems individually.

Alternative educational techniques have repeatedly been shown to be more effective and much more likely

to achieve the objectives set forth in the preceding section. Among these techniques are supportive (teambased)

Learning, inductive (discovery) learning, the assignment of open-ended questions, multidisciplinary

Problems and problem formulation exercises, the practice use of in-class problem-solving, brainstorming,

And trouble-shooting exercises, and other methods designed to address the spectrum of learning styles to be

Found among students in every class.

The advantage of the alternative methods at achieving desired both cognitive and affective

educational outcomes has been confirmed in thousands of empirical research studies, and is heavily

Supported by modern cognitive science. Nevertheless, straight lecturing and convergent problems continue

to predominate in engineering courses at most institutions. A substantial number of engineering professors

are still unaware of alternative educational methods, and many who are aware of them choose not to

incorporate them into their approach to teaching. There are several likely reasons for this inertia, aside from

the expected human resistance to change.

Modern universities have, with few exceptions, become totally dependent on research funds to

support most of their functions, including educational and administrative functions only marginally related

to research. This circumstance has dictated the establishment of research achievement as the primary

criterion for advancement up the faculty ladder, and the potential for research achievement as the primary

criterion for faculty hiring. In consequence, many young faculty members either have little interest in doing

high quality teaching or would like to do it but feel that they cannot afford to invest the necessary time.

Individuals in both categories tend to put minimal endeavor into teaching so that they can concentrate on

research, which they view (generally correctly) as the key to their career success. Moreover, most

professors begin teaching without so much as five minutes of training on how to do it. Even those who are

genuinely concerned about their students and would like to be effective teachers automatically fall back on

straight lecturing, which is the only instructional strategy most of them have ever seen.

Another obstacle to change is the fear of loss of control. Lecture classes in which student

involvement is essentially limited to passive observation (perhaps broken by occasional questioning) and

out-of-class problem solving is safe: the professor is in almost complete control of what happens in class.

On the other hand, it is hard to predict what might happen in a student-centered class. Digressions may

occur, making it difficult to stay with the syllabus, and the discussion may wander into areas in which the

professor is not all that comfortable. Perhaps worst of all, the students may simply not buy into the

program, remaining indifferent, uncooperative, or perhaps sullen in their refusal to get involved in the

planned activities.Like any other skill, directing student-centered classes is an ability that can be learned

and improves with practice. Unless some training is provided and feedback given on initial efforts,

however, professors courageous enough to try the new teaching methods are likely to become discouraged,

give up, and revert to straight lecturing.

In short, no matter how effective they may be, the new approaches to teaching will not

automatically replace the old approach. The university administration must take steps to establish a

suitable climate for change before any significant change can take place.

FACTORS SUPPORTING CHANGE

As imposing as the obstacles to change may be, we do not believe they are insuperable, and indeed

several things are happening that are conducive to change.

As noted at the beginning of this paper,

legislature and industry have been exerting increasing pressure on universities to pay more attention to the

quality of their undergraduate teaching programs, and growing competition for a shrinking pool of

applicants for engineering school has provided further impetus for change. In the United States the new

ABET criteria were developed in response to these stimuli, and the knowledge that in a short time they will

be used to evaluate all engineering programs is substantially increasing the pressure to change. Moreover,

major support for educational reform has come from the National Science Foundation Division of

Undergraduate Education and the NSF-sponsored Engineering Education Coalitions. This support has led

to the emergence of a large and rapidly growing number of innovative programs and instructional methods

and materials in the past decade, as a perusal of recent issues of the Journal of Engineering Education makes

abundantly clear. The presence of hard evidence to support claims of improvement in learning should make it easier to disseminate

education reforms to the skeptical mainstream engineering professoriate.