ABET Program Criteria for Educating Engineering Students

KOEHN, Enno "Ed"

Box 10024, Lamar University, koehneu@hal.lamar.edu

Abstract: Recently, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) sponsored programs to recommend changes for the engineering curriculum. In addition, various other studies, such as that conducted by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), investigated methods to strengthen undergraduate education.
The present investigation suggests that both practicing engineers and undergraduate/graduate students perceive that 6 subject areas presently have been or should be incorporated into the civil engineering curriculum at a high level (composite score ∃3.4). They include: mathematics; structural and geotechnical engineering; hydraulics/hydrology/water resources; construction management; and engineering design. These results suggest strong support for the traditional technical aspect of engineering. In contrast, all three groups rate professional practice issues at a relatively lower score. The foregoing are among the various subjects that have been included in the Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Program Criteria that has been adopted by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) as criteria that must be considered in order to satisfy the requirements of an accredited civil engineering degree. Overall, 66.7% of the subject areas in the program criteria are rated both by students and practitioners with a composite score ∃3.0 in the recommended and present level categories. This may be interpreted as strong support for the Engineering Criteria 2000 program requirements.

Keywords: assessment, curriculum, design, economics, professionalism

1 Introduction

Over the years there have been studies conducted by employers and various technical/professional organizations to revise the engineering curriculum to ensure that students are prepared for the future engineering workplace [4, 5, 8, 9]. Practicing engineers and educators have also indicated that they are not completely satisfied with the average engineering program [1, 2, 6, 10]. This paper presents the results of an investigation of the perceptions of a group of undergraduate and graduate students as well as practicing engineers concerning civil engineering education and accreditation.

The data for the study was obtained from a survey instrument which was distributed to students enrolled in various civil engineering degree programs as well as a group of practitioners involved with an alumni meeting. Respondents were requested to indicate and rate the particular level, (high = 4.0, average = 3.0, low = 2.0, unsure/none = 1.0) at which various subject areas presently have been or should be incorporated into the curriculum. The subjects chosen are tabulated in the Civil Engineering Program Criteria which is included in the recently adopted Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) report, Engineering Criteria 2000, which future students of accredited programs will be required to satisfy [3, 4].

2 Engineering Accreditation

Recently, there have been recommendations from educators and technical/professional societies to revise the engineering curriculum that is being required in accredited institutions [7, 11, 12, 15]. In response to these recommendations, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has revised the criteria for accrediting engineering programs [4]. The new approach shifts emphasis away from "what is being taught" to "what is being learned" and is less proscriptive of required coursework [14]. Nevertheless, the Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Program Criteria includes various subject areas in which proficiency and/or understanding must be achieved in order for a program to be accredited.

This is the third paper in a series written for the Journal of Education designed to study the engineering curriculum and accreditation criteria. In the first publication, respondents were requested to indicate whether credit hours allocated to various courses should be changed [10]. The findings show that (1) practitioners recommend an increase in credits in the English composition and literature area; (2) students believe there should be a reduction in composition and literature courses; and (3) older graduates recommend greater academic emphasis in law, accounting, oral communications, and technical writing.

The overall findings suggest that it is difficult to design a curriculum that totally satisfies all age groups. This reinforces the concept that, at commencement, an engineer must begin a

life-long process of informal/formal education to obtain the necessary skills needed to perform the various tasks that will be assigned during a professional career.

The second paper was designed to investigate the recommendations included in Engineering Criteria 2000. In particular, knowledge of professional practice issues and the ability to perform engineering design utilizing realistic design constraints was studied [6]. Here, the findings suggest that both undergraduate and graduate students as well as practitioners perceive that 2 constraints presently have been and are recommended to be incorporated into the engineering design program at a high level. They include: (1) engineering codes and standards, and (2) manufacturability (constructability). In contrast, both students groups and practitioners rate two other design constraints: Social Ramifications, and Political Factors, at a relatively lower score.

This, the third paper in the series, involves the perception of students and practitioners concerning the Program Criteria for Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Programs which is included in the ABET criteria [3]. Specifically, the 21 subject areas contained in the curriculum section are taken under consideration.

3 Undergraduate Rating of Civil Engineering Program Criteria

As a segment of a continuing review of the curriculum, a survey instrument was distributed to practitioners attending an alumni meeting and students enrolled in various courses offered by the Civil Engineering Department of Lamar University. Sixty-eight usable forms were returned, the tabulated results of which form the data base for this investigation. In particular, 17 undergraduate, 30 graduate student, and 21 practitioner forms were returned. This amounts to a response rate of roughly 80%, 90%, and 60% respectively. The number of practitioners returning the questionnaire was less than expected. Nevertheless, it is assumed that those responding to the survey were interested in and knowledgeable of engineering education, and were therefore willing to be involved with the study. The response rate as a function of the year of graduation is as follows: 1990s, 19.0%; 1980s, 23.8%; 1970s, 28.6%; 1960s, 19.0%; and 1950s, 9.5%. As shown, there is representation from various age groups.

The questionnaire listed 21 subject areas and requested respondents to rate the level; (high, average, low, unsure/none) at which each subject has been or should be incorporated into the curriculum. The subject areas chosen are those that have been proposed as a criteria for accreditation. They were included in the Civil and Similarly Named Engineering Program Criteria of the recent Engineering Criteria 2000 report and are listed in Table 1 [1, 3].

Specifically, the findings (illustrated in Tables 1 - 3) suggest that many of the subject areas presently have been and are recommended to be incorporated into the curriculum at a reasonable level. In fact, numerous subjects are rated ∃50% in the high category. The composite scores based upon the following rating system, was also computed: 4.0 = high, 3.0 = average, 2.0 = low, and 1.0 = unsure or none. Using this approach, Tables 4 and 5 show that undergraduate students perceive that 2 areas, which have a composite score ∃3.5, are presently treated or are recommended to be treated at a high level. They include:

• Mathematics through calculus and differential equations; and
• Structural engineering.

In addition, Tables 5 and 7 illustrate that the following 3 subjects also have high composite scores:

• Geotechnical engineering;
• Hydraulics/Hydrology/Water Resources; and
• Engineering design.

The 5 subject areas listed above are perceived by undergraduate students to be covered at a high level. They represent, in general, the traditional technical aspect of engineering. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 8, four areas are rated at a composite score of slightly less than 3.0 in the present level category. They include:

• Procurement of work;
• Bidding versus quality based selections;
• Interaction of design and construction professionals; and
• Importance of continuing education.

These subjects, though not technical in nature, may be extremely important in the overall management of engineering design and construction projects. This feedback indicates that additional attention and departmental/university resources may be necessary in these areas. However, as mentioned in the next section, many undergraduate students at the time the survey was taken, may not have developed the comprehensive background to rate the present coverage of all the subject areas.

4 Graduate Student Rating of Civil Engineering Program Criteria

The perceptions of graduate students are shown in Table 2 and Tables 4 - 8. Similar to undergraduates, some of the subject areas are rated ∃ 50% in the high category. Specifically, however, graduate students indicate that 3 subjects presently are both covered and recommended to be covered at a level ∃3.5. They include:

• Mathematics through calculus and differential equations;
• Structural engineering; and
• Construction management/surveying.

In addition, the following 3 are rated ∃ 3.5 in the recommended category:

• Hydraulics/Hydrology/Water Resources;
• Structural materials laboratory; and
• Engineering design.

Four of the 6 areas listed, mathematics, structural engineering, hydraulics/hydrology/water resources, and engineering design are also highly rated by undergraduates and support the traditional technical aspect of engineering. Nevertheless, as illustrated in Table 8, except for the importance of professional licensure, undergraduates tend to rate the present and recommended level of coverage of professional practice issues at a slightly lower level than graduate students. This is to be expected since many graduate students have a considerable amount of experience and may recognize the importance of these areas. Furthermore, approximately 40% of the undergraduates responding to the survey must register for at least one additional semester to complete their degree requirements. This includes courses in project management, civil engineering electives, and the major senior design experience. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that numerous undergraduate students have not been exposed to the various professional practice issues at a high level of intensity.

One subject shown in Table 4, general chemistry, is rated both by graduate students and undergraduates < 3.0 in the recommended category. It appears, therefore, that there may be a certain degree of disapproval in the manner with which chemistry is presented to university students.

A review of the data indicates that for graduate and especially undergraduate students the ratings in the present coverage category tend to be, overall, slightly less than those in the recommended category. An explanation for this difference has been presented, in part, in the previous paragraph and includes the concept that many of the undergraduates may not have taken all the required courses to develop a comprehensive background to rate the importance of some of the subject areas. Nevertheless, this feedback suggests that the department should possibly investigate whether additional resources may be necessary in specific areas.

5 Practitioner Ratings of ABET Design Considerations and Constraints

Practicing Engineers involved with an alumni conference were also requested to complete the survey instrument. In this case, the respondents were limited to indicating the level at which each subject area in the Program Criteria should be included in the engineering curriculum. The recommendations are presented in Tables 4 - 8 and show that numerous subjects were rated

∃ 50% in the high category. Furthermore, 7 areas were rated with an overall composite score

> 3.5. They include:

• Structural Engineering;
• Geotechnical Engineering;
• Hydraulics/Hydrology/Water Resources;
• Construction Management/Surveying;
• Structural/Materials Laboratory;
• Geotechnical Laboratory; and
• Design experiences.

In addition, the following subjects were rated with a score of either 3.4 or 3.5:

• Mathematics through calculus and differential equations;
• Environmental Engineering; and
• Importance of professional licensure.

This indicates that practitioners appear to strongly support the traditional technical subjects included in the ABET Civil Engineering Program Criteria.

It may be noteworthy that the non-technical professional practice areas received, in general, slightly lower scores. This is similar to that of undergraduate and graduate students and suggests that not all the subjects included in the Civil Engineering Program Criteria may have the same level of importance and should, perhaps, not be stressed to the same degree in an engineering curriculum.

A review of the data indicates that in the professional practice area the ratings of practitioners is generally more similar to that of the present ratings of graduate students compared with that of undergraduates. This is to be expected, since many of the graduate students have considerable industrial experience. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous section, approximately 40% of the undergraduate require at least one additional semester to complete their degree requirements, including satisfying the major design experience, and may not have developed the comprehensive background to rate the importance of all the subject areas.

6 Summary and Conclusions

This paper presents the results of an investigation of the perceptions of practitioners and a group of undergraduate/graduate engineering students concerning the level at which various subject areas included in the Civil Engineering Program Criteria have been and are recommended to be incorporated into the curriculum. Data for the study was obtained from a questionnaire which was completed by practicing engineers, and students enrolled in various civil engineering degree programs.

In particular, the results suggest that students and practitioners believe that 6 subject areas have been or should be incorporated into the program at a high level. They include:

• Mathematics through calculus and differential equations;
• Structural Engineering;
• Geotechnical Engineering;
• Hydraulics/Hydrology/Water Resources;
• Construction Management/Surveying; and
• Engineering design.

These results suggest strong support for the traditional technical aspect of engineering.

In contrast to the above, all three groups rate professional issues such as procurement of work, bidding versus quality based selection, interaction of design and construction professionals, and importance of continuing education at a lower score. This feedback suggests that the department should investigate whether additional resources may be necessary in specific areas. However, it may also indicate, as the criteria suggests, that not all subject areas have the same level of importance and should, perhaps, not be stressed to the same degree in an engineering sequence.

Overall, 66.7% of the subject areas in the program criteria are rated by both students and practitioners with a composite score ∃ 3.0 in the recommended and present level categories. This may be interpreted as strong support for the Engineering Criteria 2000 program requirements. The civil engineering program criteria is included by reference in the Engineering Criteria 2000 report which, in the future, all students from accredited engineering programs must satisfy in order to be awarded an engineering degree. It is hoped that the results of this investigation can be utilized by ABET as input to the review, discussion, and comment process involved with adoption of Engineering Criteria 2000. In addition, the findings could be utilized, for comparative purposes, by other departments that may wish to study their curriculum.

7 Acknowledgment

The author wishes to recognize Mrs. Debbie Graves and Mrs. Hope Scott for their assistance with the production activities involved with the preparation of this paper.

References

1. BARR, R. E. (1998). "Prioritized Survey Results." Session Report, ASEE Gulf-Southwest 1998 Annual Meeting, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA.
2. Barr, R., and Myers, D. (1997). "Results from Prioritizing Survey Issues." Session Report, ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Meeting, University of Houston, Houston, TX.
3. Commentary for Civil Engineering Program Criteria 2000 - Draft Report. (1997), ASCE.
4. Engineering Criteria 2000, 2nd Ed. (1996). Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Baltimore, MD.
5. Engineering Education for a changing world. (1994). American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Washington, DC.
6. Koehn, E. (1999). "Preparing Students for Engineering Design and Practice." Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE.
7. Koehn, E. (1997). "Engineering Perceptions of ABET Accreditation Criteria." Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 123 (2), 66-70.
8. Koehn, E. (1996). "Preparing Students for the Broadened World of Engineering." Proceedings, ASEE Gulf-Southwest Section Conference, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 90-95.
9. Koehn, E. (1995a). "Interactive Communication in Civil Engineering Classrooms." Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 121 (4), 259-261.
10. Koehn, E. (1995b). "Practitioner and Student Recommendations for an Engineering Curriculum." Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, 84 (3), 241-248.
11. Nair, I. (1997). "Decision Making in the Engineering Classroom." Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, 86,(4), 349 - 355.
12. Payne, R. (1998). "Common Goals." ASEE PRISM, 7(5), 56.
13. Richards, L. G., Carlson-Skalek, S. (1997). "Faculty Reactions to Teaching Engineering Design to First Year Students." Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, 86(3), 233 - 240.
14. Theis, T. T. (1996). "Trends in Engineering: Education and Practice." Civil Engineering, ASCE, 66 (11), 6.
15. Yamada, T., Todd, R. H. (1997). "The Quest for Relevance: Roles for Academia and Industry in Japan and the U. S. Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, 86(4), 341 - 347.

8 Appendix

Table 1. Undergraduate Students - Perceptions of Recommended/Present Level of Program Criteria

Undergraduate Students Perceptions, As a Percentage of Respondents

Table 2. Graduate Students - Perceptions of Recommended/Present Level of Program Criteria

Graduate Students Perceptions, As a Percentage of Respondents

Table 3. Practitioners - Perceptions Recommended Level of Program Criteria

Practitioners - Perception, As a Percentage of Respondents

Table 4. Comparison of Recommended/Present Levels of Mathematics and Science in Program Criteria

Level of Subject Area, As a Composite Score (based upon 4.0 = High; 3.0 = Average; 2.0 = Low; 1.0 = Unsure)

Table 5. Comparison of Recommended/Present Levels of Civil Engineering in Program Criteria

Level of Subject Area, As a Composite Score (based upon 4.0 = High; 3.0 = Average; 2.0 = Low; 1.0 = Unsure)

Table 6. Comparison of Recommended/Present Levels of Laboratory Work in Program Criteria

Level of Subject Area, As a Composite Score (based upon 4.0 = High; 3.0 = Average; 2.0 = Low; 1.0 = Unsure)

Table 7. Comparison of Recommended/Present Levels of Design Experience in Program Criteria

Level of Subject Area, As a Composite Score (based upon 4.0 = High; 3.0 = Average; 2.0 = Low; 1.0 = Unsure)

Table 8. Comparison of Recommended/Present Levels of Professional Issues in Program Criteria

Level of Subject Area, As a Composite Score (based upon 4.0 = High; 3.0 = Average; 2.0 = Low; 1.0 = Unsure)