Re Engineering Technician Education For The New Millennium

The U.S. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC-2000) requires that graduates of two-and four-year engineering technology (ET) programs demonstrate proficiency in mathematics, science, and engineering, be able to work in multidisciplinary teams, communicate effectively, be sensitive to the social and ethical issues related to the engineering profession, and develop the capacity for lifelong learning. While many four-year colleges and universities have embraced EC-2000 and have restructured their curricula and instructional methodology accordingly, the limited time available in two-year engineering technology curricula presents a unique challenge to associate degree-granting institutions – preparing learners with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to succeed in 21 century workplace. What is needed is a more efficient and effective approach to engineering technician education, one that focuses on the development of learner proficiency, the ability to skillfully apply knowledge in solving real-world problems. To this end, we draw upon the adult and experiential learning literature to create a pedagogical framework for restructuring engineering technician education. Using an interdisciplinary systems engineering approach grounded in active learning, real-world problem solving, and metacognitive development, we present key strategies for developing and enhancing learner proficiency in engineering technician education. Introduction Engineering technicians play a critical role in the high tech industries that drives this nation’s economy. Working side-by-side with engineers and scientists, engineering technicians are the “hands-on” people, responsible for building, testing and troubleshooting simple devices and components to complex integrated systems. Engineering technicians design experiments, build prototypes, analyze and interpret data, and present experimental results to peers, supervisors and customers. They are required to work individually as well as in interdisciplinary teams, interface with vendors, and contribute to process efficiency in manufacturing and production environments. Given the breadth of knowledge and skills required of the engineering technician, it is ironic that most two-year engineering technician programs are still structured using a discipline-specific educational model (e.g., electrical, mechanical, manufacturing, etc), taught using an instructor-led methodology that hasn’t changed in decades. Critics of engineering technician education 3 argue that educational programs focus too much on the transmittal of information through static lecture-discussion formats and routine laboratory experiences. This approach to education often results in graduates who do not have a full range of important employability skills and competencies needed in business and industry, such as the ability to apply knowledge skillfully to problems of practice, communicate effectively, work as Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education P ge 10053.1 members of a team, and engage in lifelong learning. As a result, engineering technicians often enter the workforce inadequately prepared to adapt to the complex and ever-changing demands the high-tech workplace. One of the underlying problems with engineering technician education is that while ET faculty may be highly trained experts in their own disciplines, most have had little or no formal training in education. Whereas much progress has been made over the past decade in upgrading the technical skills of faculty through programs such as the National Science Foundation Advanced Technology Education program (NSF-ATE) and others, little attention has been given to the pedagogical methods used to teach these skills to students. Like their predecessors, ET faculty often resort to an instructor-centered approach in their teaching whereby they attempt to “fill” students with knowledge rather than facilitate student learning. In short, they “teach the way they were taught” , lecturing, developing assignments and tests, and assigning grades. Students move through a standard sequence of self-contained courses taught in isolation where they learn to solve problems within the narrow context of individual courses. Laboratory courses are often taught using a “cookbook” approach, not affording students sufficient opportunity for critical thinking and synthesis of knowledge; connecting what they have learned to prior knowledge or experience and applying what they have learned in new applications and/or novel situations. Upon completion of core coursework, students are often expected to synthesize the knowledge gained in each course completing a capstone-type project, an approach antithetical to way people really learn. As a result, learners often learn content with little or no regard for the world in which the knowledge is to be applied. This approach is analogous to having all of the required building materials delivered to construction site but having no blueprint to work from – how does it all fit together? The goal of engineering technician education should not be limited to the transfer of knowledge from instructor to student, but more importantly the development of proficient individuals; individuals who have a well-organized knowledge base and skills set that they can apply to solve real-world problems and who are ready to learn and adapt as technology changes. Instruction should advance learners along an educational continuum that transforms dependent learners, those who rely on the instructor as the sole source for information, to independent learners, those capable of identifying gaps in their own knowledge and skills, and who exercise the selfregulation needed to seek out the resources needed fill those gaps 9 (i.e., metacognitive learners). Instructor-led methods, unfortunately, provide little opportunity for guided inquiry, collaborative learning, and real-world problem solving strategies shown to facilitate the development of proficiency, the skilled application of knowledge. What is needed is a fundamental restructuring of engineering technician education—an integration of content and pedagogy that fosters the development of proficiency by actively engaging students in individual and collaborative problem-solving, analysis, synthesis, critical thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge to real-world situations . New instructional strategies must be employed that emphasize practical learning, and require that students demonstrate the proficiency in science, mathematics and engineering fundamentals, communication, multidisciplinary teamwork, lifelong learning skills, and awareness of social and ethical considerations associated with the engineering profession –the basis of EC-2000. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education P ge 10053.2 A course of action In 1992, engineering faculty at Drexel University was presented with the challenge of revamping their engineering curricula to address the “would be” requirements of ABET EC2000. Following a traditional approach of developing a long sequence of individual courses the faculty felt would address the educational goals and objectives set forth, they soon realized that time constraints would not permit such a sequence; a new approach was needed. What they came up with was an integrated approach to engineering education coined E (An Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineering Students). Fromm described the E approach as a joint venture between mathematics, science, engineering, and humanities faculty, teamed in planning and teaching these topics with interwoven connections and engineering context, with an increased emphasis on experiential learning, interdisciplinary teamwork, and an “engineering upfront” philosophy (p. 114). In short, Drexel faculty applied an integrated systems methodology to engineering education, a holistic approach centered on engineering design, whereby each course (and each topic) is learned in context and as an integral part of a whole. As a result of the E program, Drexel University reported a 50% increase in student retention for the first graduating class that completed the experimental program as well as improved problem solving, negotiation, and critical integration skills. The E approach taken by Drexel University demonstrated that positive learning outcomes are achievable by applying an integrated systems-level approach to engineering education in a fouryear program. The question arises, however, as to whether a similar approach could be applied in a two-year engineering technician program. While enrollment in most four-year engineering programs consists of mainly traditional college-aged students (18-25 years), two-year engineering technician programs most often reside within community colleges where the average student age is 25 to 30+ years. Many of these students work full time, have family obligations, and have been away from school for several years. Some have been downsized, displaced, or have had their jobs outsourced and need retooling. For many, the common denominator is time – they need to acquire new skills and get back into the workforce as quickly as possible. They are adult learners, bringing to the classroom a wealth of experience, and while it may or may not be related to the field of study, it provides a foundation upon which to build new knowledge, and a unique perspective from which they view the world. The challenge for ET faculty is providing students with an optimal balance of core academic knowledge needed to satisfy general education requirements and transferability, and discipline-specific technical skills needed to be marketable upon graduation. Given these constrai