Perceptions Of Engineering Education

The impact of engineering education seems to be felt in all veins of life. Its vastness and recent developments in and out of the field though, blurs what engineering education is. Inconsistent definitions of engineering education are depicted in the literature. One prominent view positions engineering education as a pipeline for developing future engineers by providing exploration and experimentation at the elementary and secondary educational levels. At the university level, it is viewed as a rigorous learning activity. With the recent creation of programs of Departments of Engineering Education in universities across the nation, a clearer understanding of the scope and definition of engineering education is warranted. To address this need, this presentation will review the results of a study that examined the current perceptions of engineering professionals about the scope and direction of engineering education. Members of three divisions of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) namely, Educational Research Methods (ERM), 38%; Engineering Technology Division (ETD), 33%; and K-12 Division (K-12), 29% were purposefully selected to participate. A majority of the data collected from the 380 respondents was conducted electronically. A series of one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in several key questions. Implications to engineering education are also discussed. Introduction and Literature Review Although engineering education has existed for decades, its definition has remained elusive. Founded in 1893 as the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education and later renamed the American Society for Engineering Education in 1946, it championed the propagation of engineers 1 . Seely (1999) explained that early pioneers in engineering education were determined to achieve recognition, prestige, and professional status that society accorded to law, medicine, and other professions. To do so, engineers distanced themselves from craftsmen and workers using the certification of higher education 2 . While successful in developing many areas of engineering specialization, debate has continued about the purpose and focus of engineering education. For example, the Engineers’ Council for Professional Development (ECPD) authorized a study on how to make engineering a leader in problem solving 3,4 . Borrego (2007; Borrego et al., 2006) pointed out that engineering education should be a rigorous research community of practice 5,6 . Finally, Merill et al. (2006) proposed that engineering should be located at the secondary level to equip high school students with the analytical skills needed to approach to problem solving 7 . A more consistent view of engineering education seems warranted. In an effort to further refine the focus of engineering education, the purpose of this survey research was to determine ASEE members’ current perceptions toward engineering education and examine differences based on group affiliations. Research questions included: 1. Do ASEE members differ towards critical issues in Engineering Education based on group affiliations? Page 13970.2 2. Do ASEE members differ in opinion towards degree programs needed to meet engineering education challenges based upon group affiliation? 3. Do ASEE members differ in opinion towards criteria used for consideration in promotion and tenure for a traditional faculty member based on group affiliation? Method A survey was used to ascertain the perceptions of three ASEE’s divisions, ERM, ETD, and K-12. These three divisions were selected because of accessibility and diversity of representation. ERM tends to represent the higher education university researchers; ETD tends to represent 2and 4 year college and university faculty; and K-12 represents secondary level interests, such as elementary and high school faculty. Information about this survey was communicated to members of ASEE’s three division during their respective business meetings at the 2007 ASEE convention in Honolulu, Hawaii. Hardcopies of the survey were distributed, although few members were able to complete the hardcopy instrument. A majority of data was collected electronically. Instrument The instrument was developed by the authors and pilot tested to a group of 20 educators and engineers and modified based on their feedback. Basic demographic information included division affiliation, gender, Carnegie ranking of participant’s institution, years of service in primary affiliation, and whether they were engineering or education faculty was obtained (see Appendix). Next, ASEE members were asked to define engineering education in an open-ended format. Lastly, members were asked to respond to issues about engineering education through a series of items requiring Likert-type responses. Items sought responses about critical issues facing engineering education and degree programs needed to meet engineering challenges using the following 5-point scale: 5=Very critical, 4=Critical, 3=Neutral, 2=Less critical, and 1=Not critical. Questions on promotion and tenure for criteria for faculty (when appropriate), used the following response options: 5=Much more weight should be given, 4=More weight should be given, 3= The proper amount is currently given, 2=Less weight should be given, 1=Much less weight should be given. Likert scale responses were treated as an internal scale to calculate numerical averages 7 . Coding of open-ended questions on perceived focus of engineering education was done by searching for and placing recurring statements that fit in one of three categories, that is, engineering research; engineering practice or application; or general education. It emerged that resulting definitions tended to follow ASEE group affiliations (see Table 1).