| By Sherra E. Kerns ASEE
HAS TAKEN ON A MAJOR NEW ROLE IN
SELECTING AND TRAINING ABET ACCREDITATION
EVALUATORS.
For some time, we’ve all
been proud that ASEE has been a
leader among engineering societies.
Our membership is inclusive: We
represent many engineering and related
disciplines and a wide variety of
academic, corporate, and government
institutions. Our contributions
are in areas that span issues affecting
engineering education: from K-12
through two- and four-year engineering
and engineering technology programs;
from domestic to international educational
systems; and from the scholarship
of engineering education regarding
classroom content and assessment
approaches to our projects work
in facilitating the awards of fellowships.
Our fiscal and organizational health
is strong. Our organization shows
excellence in many respects, yet
that’s only part of the reason
that ABET designated ASEE a “Lead
Society” in March 2005.
ASEE is a founding member society
of ABET, having cooperated with
other societies to form ABET (then
called ECPD) in 1932. Last year,
the ASEE Board of Directors requested
that we be designated the ABET Lead
Society representing programs in
engineering, general engineering,
engineering technology, engineering
science, and engineering physics.
This group includes almost 70 programs.
Former ASEE President John Weese,
our ABET Board representative, presented
our motion with supporting materials
and letters of endorsement from
representatives of these programs,
and the ABET Board approved the
action without dissent.
As Lead Society, ASEE will select,
train, assign, mentor, and evaluate
the performance of evaluators for
these programs, as well as provide
advocacy within the Engineering
Accreditation and Technology Accreditation
Commissions of ABET on issues important
to their success. Previously, these
programs did not benefit from a
Lead Society.
We will begin to serve engineering,
general engineering, engineering
technology, engineering science,
and engineering physics programs
in this role during the 2006-07
accreditation cycle. The tasks of
selecting, training, assigning,
and mentoring evaluators will be
coordinated through our Accreditation
Activities Committee, chaired by
Edwin C. Jones, professor emeritus
of electrical engineering at Iowa
State and an experienced domestic
and international ABET evaluator
and team chair. We are most fortunate
to have the experience and dedication
to accreditation services Ed brings
to this job. For more than 15 years,
he assigned program evaluation visitors
for IEEE, which includes approximately
500 programs. He has authored, and
our ASEE Board has approved, a set
of policies and procedures to guide
our accreditation work.
Our new status opens opportunities
for all members to explore their
interests and to contribute in accreditation
service. Prior service as a program
evaluator for another Lead Society
will neither assure nor prevent
eligibility for service as an ASEE
program evaluator. Every ASEE member
selected to be a program evaluator
will be provided training.
With this achievement, ASEE has
again expanded its service to engineering
education and gained another opportunity
to demonstrate the excellence of
its members in this new arena of
influence and responsibility. Gaining
Lead Society status has required
the dedication, efforts, and cooperation
of many, especially Ed Jones, John
Weese, ASEE Executive Director Frank
Huband, Multidisciplinary Engineering
Committee members Joan Gosink and
Jim Farison, ASEE liaison with the
Technology Accreditation Commission
Walt Buchanan, the members of the
ASEE board during the past two years,
and our colleagues on the ABET headquarters
staff and board. Venturing into
new territories requires that everything
from the broad vision to the small
details be attended, communicated,
confirmed, and incorporated into
the works of ASEE. For these achievements,
I thank this group on behalf of
our membership.
I also offer a brief and sincere
note of gratitude for the many exciting
experiences of the past year as
your president. I hope to see you
at the annual conference in Portland
and personally express my thanks.
|
In a continuing effort to connect
the international engineering education
community, the American Society
for Engineering Education, along
with the Chinese Academy of Engineering
and the National Natural Science
Foundation of China, held the third
annual International Colloquium
on Engineering Education in September.
Hosted by Tsinghua University in
Beijing, the conference offered
educators and researchers an opportunity
to meet with more than 300 colleagues
from around the world and explore
different facets of engineering
education, as well as share their
own research. Speakers from more
than 10 countries presented papers
on three main topic areas: continuing
education and its delivery, engineering
education reform, and international
recognition of qualifications. The
following is a summary of the proceedings.
CONTINUING
EDUCATION AND ITS DELIVERY
Industry wants engineering graduates
who are well prepared in the fundamentals
at graduation and who will continue
their education throughout their
careers. Customers—engineers
and their employers—are defining
the content and format of the continuing
education they will buy. Successful
continuing education offerings need
to satisfy the immediate needs of
industry, as well as the longer-term
career needs of the engineers.
Continuing education broadens the
knowledge of engineers beyond initial
technical education to issues such
as the environment, ethics, societal
needs, and international issues.
Engineers engaging in continuing
education want a choice of synchronous,
asynchronous, or blended-education
offerings. They want access to a
wide range of online degrees, certificates,
and credentialing options. Engineers
also want customized learning experiences,
tailored to their current needs.
They want a networked learning community
and a team environment in which
to learn.
Engineers in developing countries
need to become up-to-date and learn
about existing technical areas and
newly developing technical fields.
State-of-the-art knowledge is needed
in order to enhance the competitiveness
of their countries in the global
marketplace. Today, continuing education
courses for engineers often stress
a combination of technical content
and broader education—teamwork,
international, soft skills, and
management skills.
Continuing education is important
for licensing, also. A license to
practice engineering generally requires
an initial accredited degree, testing,
a period of experience, and then
continued professional competency
through lifelong learning. Some
licensing jurisdictions now have
mandatory continuing education requirements.
The technology for delivery of
continuing education courses has
generally moved from satellite to
Internet delivery. Online laboratory
experiences are being developed,
utilizing virtual experiments. And
while formal accreditation generally
does not apply to continuing education
programs, some groups, such as corporations,
professional societies, and testing
services do evaluate continuing
education offerings. Measuring the
results of lifelong learning programs
should include assessments of the
level of improved understanding,
student engagement, faculty efficiency,
and access to faculty members.
Continuing education providers
are taking innovative approaches,
such as offering chat rooms for
networked learning, instructional
associates to answer questions,
and E-learning systems to make their
offerings more attractive and effective.
Looking ahead, continuing education
providers need to move from one-way
lectures to active learning. And
initial college education needs
to teach students how to learn throughout
their professional careers.
INTERNATIONAL
RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS
International recognition of qualifications,
which is essential to increasing
the mobility of engineers between
countries, is of concern to many,
and many aspects of it remain to
be settled. With increasing globalization,
the need for mobility is increasing.
Until the problem is solved, compromises,
such as finding a partner in another
country and having the joint work
be carried out in the name of the
local partner, are being used. At
the meeting we heard about initiatives
in many countries to develop processes
that will contribute to a clearer
and a more straight- forward answer
to the mobility problem.
Many speakers addressed how an
engineering educational program
can be assessed so that valid comparisons
can be made between them. This is
essential to deciding on equivalence
of formal education and work experience
in various engineering programs.
Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs)
include many countries and are expanding
but still have a long way to go.
Even with these, the practice of
engineering in another country usually
requires a license. An MRA is helpful
in obtaining one but does not provide
it.
The Washington Accord is one large
MRA that presently has eight member
countries, most of which are English
speaking. Another MRA is the EUR
ENG concept that ties together the
engineers of the European Union.
Neither of these confers a license
to practice, which must be obtained
in the country where the engineer
wishes to practice. A third MRA
is the Western Hemisphere Initiative,
which derives from NAFTA (the North
American Free Trade Agreement) and
involves Canada, the United States,
and Mexico.
The EUR ENG system bases its evaluation
on inputs to the educational system,
such as time spent in classes and
the laboratory, qualifications of
faculty, and resources available.
Another form of assessment is based
on outputs, such as a graduate’s
knowledge, skills, and understanding
of a wide range of scientific, engineering,
and work-context issues. This system
is used by several of the Washington
Accord members. Other countries,
such as Japan and Korea, are reported
to use a hybrid of the two approaches.
A problem that is receiving much
attention is setting a minimum quality
for the education, first within
each country and then within an
MRA group. Many countries have settled
this accreditation issue to where
the MRAs represent groups that have
mutually recognized standards. But
accreditation and mutual recognition
of the education of engineers should
not be perceived as standardization.
They deal with minimum standards
that individual institutions are
free to exceed. To do otherwise
would deter innovation, an essential
ingredient of engineering education.
The widespread activity that was
reported at this meeting shows there
is an influential movement in many
parts of the world to effect positive
changes in the way engineering education
is evaluated and to work across
borders to develop MRAs. However,
this is still a work in progress.
ENGINEERING
EDUCATION REFORM
It is interesting to note that during
the keynote addresses, both Chinese
and U.S. speakers addressed many
of the same issues, including globalization,
liberal arts, entrepreneurship,
and relationship to world. It was
agreed that the engineer for the
21st century must be different from
the engineer of the past. Engineering
is not as simple as it once was,
and the education and training of
future engineers need to reflect
this. Engineers need to not only
solve the direct problem but also
to understand its context. The awareness
of the social responsibilities related
to and required by the solution
adds a complexity to the practice
of engineering that was not there
before. The future engineer needs
to be aware of the different interests
of people who are stakeholders in
the solution and process.
Student engagement opportunities
such as the program between the
University of Michigan and Shanghai
Jao Tong University reflect one
way of designing and promoting engineering
education reform. Incorporating
service-learning into the undergraduate
engineering curriculum is another
approach to student engagement.
The balance in the core curriculum
between hard or traditional engineering
content with soft skills or liberal
arts education is a major challenge.
How can we provide the whole education
without prolonging the duration
of education or diluting the content?
Is the development of new courses
needed?
Many of the speakers also raised
the issue of engineering ethics.
Currently, there is very little
instruction focusing on engineering
ethics in the curriculum, but there
is a great need. In addition, there
was discussion about different engagement
models for students who go to work
and students who go into research
and training. When is the appropriate
time to split these groups apart?
Several speakers focused on how
to keep practicing engineers current
in their field. Some expressed concern
that industry does not recognize
its responsibility in engineering
education. Universities are beginning
to address the need to provide education
throughout an engineer’s career.
In terms of accomplishing education
reform, accreditation was cited
as a mechanism to help provide standards
by which all programs could understand
their strengths and weaknesses.
The ability to communicate and share
information globally was cited as
a means to enable the exchange of
engineering best practices and common
curriculum. And continuing education
was mentioned as a way of outreach
to practicing engineers. Existing
tools include the sharing of experiences
and best practices via publications
in journals such as the Journal
of Engineering Education.
Russel C. Jones, World Expertise
LLC, Falls Church, VA; William S.
Butcher, ret. National Science Foundation,
McLean, VA; Jane Chu Prey, Microsoft
Corp., Redmond, Wash.
|
National Security and workforce
issues were the primary focus of
this year’s Engineering Deans
Council (EDC) Public Policy Colloquium,
which took place March 8 and 9 in
Washington. About 100 deans of engineering
from 34 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico attended
the event. The colloquium, entitled,
“Engineering’s Role
in the Nation’s Future,”
took place at the National Academy
of Engineering building on Constitution
Avenue. The colloquium featured
a keynote address by Rep. Jim Cooper
(D-Tenn.) as well as presentations
by scientific organizations and
government agencies. On the second
day of the colloquium, the deans
divided into state groups and visited
with their congressional delegations.
In the congressional keynote address,
Rep. Cooper discussed the growing
concern over the future of American
competitiveness with countries that
are educating an increasing number
of engineers. “In today’s
business world, a strong foundation
in science and engineering is vital
to success,” he said. “Enrollment
in science and engineering graduate
programs among American students
dropped 10 percent between 1994
and 2001, while it rose 35 percent
among international students. We
clearly have to do a better job
of encouraging America’s young
men and women to seriously pursue
studies in the fields if we want
them to succeed and we want the
American economy to continue to
lead. I applaud the American
Society for Engineering Education
for their leadership in this area
and share their commitment to get
more Americans to support science
and engineering studies at all levels
of education.”
Other speakers included James Duderstadt,
former president of the University
of Michigan; G. Wayne Clough, president
of the Georgia Institute of Technology;
John C. Crowley from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; and Arden
L. Bement Jr., director of the National
Science Foundation.
The deans discussed engineering’s
role in defense R&D, national
security, and workforce issues during
the breakout sessions. Presentations
were given at the breakout sessions
by Gary Gabriele of the National
Science Foundation, Daniel Goroff
from Harvard University, Tobin Smith
from the Association of American
Universities, and Amy Flatten from
the American Physical Society. In
both the engineering workforce and
national security sessions, the
deans expressed concern over maintaining
adequate opportunities for international
students in engineering programs
and suggested that a shortage of
international students will impact
the competitiveness of American
engineering programs.
In the evening, the deans traveled
to Capitol Hill for a reception
honoring Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.)
and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
with this year’s EDC Appreciation
Award for their contributions to
national engineering and science
policy, research, and education.
The deans also met with members
of Congress and their staff. Most
of the policymakers seemed “supportive”
of R&D and S&T funding in
the FY 2006 budget but were skeptical
in the face of such a difficult
budget climate. —Robert
Malgieri
|
Sustainable
Engineering Practice: An Introduction.
Edited by Jorge A. Vanegas.
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA; 2004, 136 pp., $39.
 The
engineers of today face a world
where the demands for shelter, sanitation,
and energy, just to name a few,
are ever growing. In an effort to
create a primer on sustainability
principles and their application
to engineering work, the American
Society of Civil Engineers has published
Sustainable Engineering Practice:
An Introduction. The report
brings together basic dimensions
of the history, concepts, and applications
of sustainable engineering, as well
as encourages engineers to integrate
sustainable engineering into their
work on a lifelong basis. The report
includes accomplishments of engineers
in sustainable development, a summary
of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, which was held in September
2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa,
and examples of how sustainability
principles can be integrated into
engineering education and practice.
|
| The ASEE Nominating Committee,
chaired by Most Immediate Past President
Duane L. Abata, requests member
participation in nominating board
officers for the 2006 ASEE elections.
Officers to be nominated for societywide
positions are: President-Elect;
Vice President Member Affairs; Chair
PIC I; Chair PIC IV; and Chair PIC
V.
All nominees must be individual
members or institutional member
representatives of ASEE at the time
of nomination and must maintain
ASEE membership during their term
of office. Nominating Committee
members are not eligible for nomination.
The slate of candidates selected
by the committee will not exceed
two candidates per office.
Candidates for President-Elect
must be active members who have
served or are serving on the Board
of Directors. Candidates for Vice
President, Member Affairs shall
be chosen from those who have served
as Zone Chairs.
Candidates for Chair of the Engineering
Technology Council, Chair of the
Engineering Research Council, and
Chair-Elect for Zone I and Zone
III will be nominated and selected
by their respective councils and
zones, as the ASEE Constitution
stipulates.
For each proposed candidate for
a societywide office, submit a biographical
sketch of fewer than 400 words that
documents career contributions,
ASEE offices held, awards and recognitions
received, and educational background.
Include comments on leadership qualities,
ability to cooperate with others
to achieve objectives, and willingness
to serve if elected. A listing of
members who meet constitutional
eligibility requirements for the
offices of President-Elect and Vice
President Member Affairs is available
from the Executive Director’s
office at ASEE headquarters.
Send nominations in writing, marked
confidential, by May 30. For nominations
for the office of President-Elect,
please include an advocacy statement.
Mail nominations to Duane L. Abata,
Chair, ASEE Nominating Committee,
ASEE, 1818 N Street, N.W., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20036.
|
| The National Academy of Engineering
elected eight new ASEE members in
recognition of their outstanding
contributions to engineering research,
practice, or education.
George
Georgiou, Joe C.
Walter Jr. Endowed Chair, department
of chemical engineering, University
of Texas—Austin, for his contributions
to protein engineering, especially
the development of therapeutics
to biological warfare agents, protein
manufacturing technologies, and
combinatorial library screening
methodologies.
Carol
K. Hall, Alcoa Professor
of Chemical Engineering, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, for applications
of modern thermodynamic and computer-simulation
methods to chemical engineering
problems involving macromolecules
and complex fluids.
Leah
H. Jamieson, Ransburg
Professor of Electrical and Computer
Engineering and associate dean for
undergraduate education, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Ind.,
for innovations in integrating engineering
education and community service.
David
A. Landgrebe, Professor
Emeritus of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Ind., for contributions
to the development of multispectral
technology for remote Earth sensing.
Subhash
Mahajan, chair,
department of chemical and materials
engineering, Arizona State University—Tempe,
for advancing our understanding
of structure-property relationships
in semiconductors, magnetic materials,
and materials for light-wave communication.
Danny
David Reible, co-director,
professor, and chair, department
of civil engineering, University
of Texas—Austin, for the development
of widely used methods of managing
contaminated sediments.
Pol
D. Spanos, L.B.
Ryon Chair in Engineering, Rice
University, Houston, for the development
of methods of predicting the dynamic
behavior and reliability of structural
systems in diverse loading environments.
Ralph
T. Yang, Dwight
T. Benton Professor of Chemical
Engineering, University of Michigan—Ann
Arbor, for the development of the
theory, methods, and materials for
the removal of environmentally hazardous
compounds from transportation fuels
and other difficult separations.
|
|  David
N. Wormley is the
new ASEE President-Elect for 2005-2006.
Wormley is Dean of Engineering and
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
at Pennsylvania State University.
He currently serves as Chair of
ASEE’s Engineering Deans Council.
He will assume the position of ASEE
President-Elect at the 2005 Annual
Conference and become President
the following year.
Other
ASEE officers elected by members
are:
Vice
President, Public Affairs:
Albert
L. McHenry, Dean
of the College of Technology and
Applied Sciences at Arizona State
University East
Vice
President, Finance:
Joseph
T. O’Brien,
University Relations Program Manager
for the Hewlett-Packard Company
Chair,
Professional Interest Council II:
Gary
R. Crossman, Professor
and Chair of the Department of Engineering
Technology at Old Dominion University
Chair,
Professional Interest Council III:
Shirley
B. Pomeranz, Associate
Professor of Mathematical Sciences
in the Department of Mathematical
and Computer Sciences, College of
Engineering and Natural Sciences,
the University of Tulsa
Chair-Elect,
Zone II:
John
J. Uhran, Jr., Senior
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
of the College of Engineering at
the University of Notre Dame and
Professor of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science and Engineering
Chair-Elect,
Zone IV:
William
R. Wells, Professor
of Mechanical Engineering and Mathematical
Sciences at the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas
|
|
 |
|
