The ASCE publication “Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21 Century” (BOK2) specifies 24 educational outcomes that are deemed essential for civil engineering graduates to practice at the professional level. Recognizing that it is impossible to meet all of the outcomes within the confines of a nominal four-year BS program, BOK2 envisions that some of the outcomes will be met through a program of study equivalent to approximately 30 credits of advanced coursework. The authors have just completed a process at their institution of mapping the post-BS outcomes to a series of course modules of non-traditional one to three credit hour graduate courses. These courses will be intended for three groups of students, including seniors and graduate students as well as practicing engineers planning to become licensed professional engineers. We present our educational assumptions, the general outline of our new system of courses, and several examples of new courses, and discuss how industry involvement was obtained to define these new course modules. Project Justification The ASCE recently published “Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21 Century” (BOK2), which specifies 24 educational outcomes that are deemed essential for civil engineering graduates to practice at the professional level. Recognizing that it is impossible to meet all of the outcomes within the confines of a nominal four-year BS program, BOK2 envisions that some of the outcomes will be met through a program of study equivalent to approximately 30 credits of advanced coursework. The BOK2 report leaves open the question how individual civil engineers take the courses and how they will be offered and taught by various departments. The fundamental assumption is that civil engineers need to acquire an advanced body of knowledge, equivalent to at least 30 credits, before they become professional engineers. BOK2 also suggests (but does not mandate) how the total body of knowledge needed for practice should be distributed across the undergraduate program, the advanced study component, and on the job training obtained during the engineering apprenticeship period. Hence the exact content of the advanced component at a particular institution will depend to some extent upon how it is articulated with the undergraduate component, and assumptions or analyses made about the educational backgrounds of those entering advanced component courses who have completed their undergraduate education at other institutions. Our Department is a medium size civil engineering department in terms of undergraduate students (more than 250 today, with growth of about 10% from 2008 to 2009) but small in terms of faculty, with only eight full time civil engineering faculty, two of whom have significant administrative responsibilities. This contradiction means that our faculty members are overloaded with teaching, research, and professional services with little time to invest in making fundamental changes and improvements in the existing graduate program. In other words, it is difficult to add to our offerings any traditional three-credit P ge 14697.2 graduate courses, which require a substantial commitment of time to prepare and teach. On the other hand, our graduate student population is relatively small and stable with about 50 graduate students. Due to this relatively small enrollment many elective courses are cross-listed as combined undergraduate and graduate courses. The small number of exclusive graduate courses hurts our reputation and makes it more difficult to attract the best domestic and foreign student. Also, the lack of graduate courses in high demand areas such as structures significantly reduces our ability to attract local graduate students. In this situation, we made a collective decision to pursue two complementary approaches to enhance the quality and content of our post-BS program. The first is a novel educational paradigm called “bridge courses.” (Note: the word “bridge” is used metaphorically rather than literally here, even though an example used later is in the area of structural engineering.) The second is a collaboration with industry to identify the most important foci for our graduate programs and to expand our academic programs in these directions. The courses and programs developed through these approaches will serve three purposes: to expand learning opportunities for our undergraduate students; to create attractive courses for our graduate students; and to offer courses to local practicing engineers interested in advancing their careers and planning to become professional engineers. The courses might also help to fill the need for engineers to engage in lifelong learning as a condition for maintaining professional engineering licensure, though serving that need was not a primary design objective.
[1]
Ann F. McKenna,et al.
Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field
,
2010
.
[2]
J. Stanley,et al.
Book Review: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain
,
1957
.
[3]
Patricia D. Galloway.
The 21st-Century Engineer: A Proposal for Engineering Education Reform
,
2007
.
[4]
null null,et al.
Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century
,
2008
.
[5]
Thomas A. Lenox,et al.
AC 2007-224: ASCE POLICY 465 ? THE MEANS FOR REALIZING THE ASPIRATIONAL VISIONS OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN 2025
,
2007
.
[6]
C. Bao Iturbe,et al.
Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century
,
2009,
IEEE Engineering Management Review.
[7]
Tomasz Arciszewski.
Civil Engineering Crisis
,
2006
.
[8]
Adnan Akay.
The renaissance engineer: educating engineers in a post-9/11 world * Presented at the SEFIrenze Conference, 11 September 2002, Florence, Italy.
,
2003
.