|
|
Volume 3 No.4, Spring 2000 |
ISSN# 1523-9926 |
Introductory comments -- after considerable evaluation and thought
regarding the proposed ET2K criteria, the following comments and suggestions are
submitted:
Part I. First and foremost, I believe that engineering technology must
provide a consistent base or "core" of engineering principles for all
ET graduates, and that this core be lower division so that it can be readily
taught by, and articulated with, community college pre-engineering and/or
pre-engineering-technology programs throughout the country. I believe that this
will be best accomplished by blending some of the existing "bean counting,"
of the existing TAC/ABET Criteria along with the suggestions of the new ET2K
criteria.
In addition, my evaluation of the ET2K Committee's "charge" is
provided below:
1. The new criteria are to be shorter, simpler, and more focused.
Response -- the new criteria take five pages; the current criteria take ten
pages. The Program Criteria apply in both cases, which I agree with.
I agree that there should be less focus on bean counting, however, it should not
be eliminated completely. Some "core bean counting" should be retained
so that industry can be reasonably assured that graduates will have a defined
minimum base of engineering fundamentals.
In my judgment, the new criteria tends to allow too much subjectivity --
different evaluators may evaluate a given program differently. Although a strong
emphasis on program-by-program focus sounds good, too much flexibility may be
detrimental, and may cause articulation problems from community college programs
to baccalaureate-level programs. For example, it appears that a course in
"programming" is no longer specified -- the new criteria simply states
that a program "must provide students with competence in computer
applications appropriate to the discipline and degree level and include the use
of software for solving technical programs within technical courses." What
is a community college supposed to do? And, what basis of programming
understanding does industry rely upon? On balance, I believe that a strong
lower-division technical core should remain specified. See ET Core, attached.
Human Communication -- I believe that some standard set of core in
oral/technical writing, team skills, use of literature in field of
specialization is required. See ET Core, attached.
Mathematics -- I agree that the math foundation should be college
algebra and trigonometry. I also agree that ASET programs must introduce higher
math; and that BSET programs must use calculus. However, the notion of not
specifying any required unit count is poor; I believe that this should remain
specified. See ET Core, attached.
Physical Science -- I believe that the proposed criteria -- "must
include physics, chemistry, life/earth science appropriate to program goals;
with lab work required" is good. However, not specifying any unit count is
poor; I believe that this should remain specified. See ET Core, attached.
SS/Hu -- I believe that the proposed criteria -- "must include
understanding of diversity, global and societal impacts of technology" is
good and that not specifying any units is okay.
Technical -- I believe that the proposed technical-area criteria --
"a broad interpretation of technical core and specialization coursework
greater than or equal to 1/3, but less than or equal to 2/3 of the total program
credits; with no specific courses or units specified, and no cap on coop units,
but with a capstone course required," is probably okay. However, it should
remain based upon a specified lower-division technical core. See ET Core, attached.
Regarding the removal of the cap on coop units -- I think this is a poor idea,
the current cap should remain in place.
2. The new criteria are to have greater emphasis on capabilities of graduates
than current criteria.
The new ET2K criteria appears to give considerable program-content control to
the faculty, rather than specifying a block of course names and/or topics as
currently done. As a result, each faculty group will have to demonstrate the use
feedback for continuous improvement, with business and industry input. Thus,
each program will be able to set their own scope and level within broad
"application" guidelines from the new criteria, as long as their
graduates are accepted by industry, and industry feedback is used for program
guidance. I believe that this is is a good idea, within limits, after the
lower-division ET Core has been satisfied. See ET Core, attached.
3. The new criteria are to concentrate on quality and program
effectiveness.
The ET2K criteria specifies that graduates must demonstrate each of the
following: (a) mastery of knowledge, techniques, skills, and modern tools of
their disciplines; (b) use current and emerging knowledge of math, science,
engineering, and technology; (c) conduct, analyze, interpret, and apply
experimental results to improve processes; (d) apply creativity in design of
systems, components, processes appropriate to program goals; (e) function
effectively on teams; (f) identify, analyze, and solve technical problems; (g)
communicate effectively; (h) possess ability to pursue lifelong learning; (i)
understand professional, ethical, and social responsibilities; (j) recognize
professional, societal, and global issues, and to respect diversity; and (k)
have a commitment to quality, timeliness and continuous improvement. Overall, I
believe that this is acceptable, after the ET Core has been satisfied.
4. The new criteria are to allow flexibility in delivery to support
innovation.
I believe that this is acceptable, after the ET Core has been satisfied.
5. The new criteria are to retain assurance of expected standards.
It appears that the expected standards are to be broadened (specified by each
faculty group). Overall, I believe that this is acceptable, after the ET Core
has been satisfied. Regarding faculty credentials -- the new ET2K criteria
for faculty appear to be about the same as the current criteria. For BS
programs, a MS in engineering or engineering technology; for AS programs, a PE
with a closely- related BS program is okay; 3 years industry experience,
minimum. I believe this is acceptable.
6. The new criteria are to provide guidance for essential inputs and
processes.
I agree that continuous feedback, with industry guidance, should be required for
program evaluation and on-going development, after the ET Core has been
satisfied.
Part II. Suggested Lower-Division ET CORE for all ET Programs
Lower-Division ET Core
for All Engineering Technology Programs
(Quarter units shown)
1. Human Comm/Humanities/Soc Sci
English Composition I (4)
Oral Communication (4)
English Comp II with Critical Thinking (4)
Economics (4)
2. Mathematics & Science
Pre-Calculus, or College Algebra and Trigonometry (4)
Statistics (3)
Technical Calculus I (4)
Technical Calculus II (4)
College Chemistry with Lab (4)
College Physics with Lab (8)
Life Sciences (3)
3. Technical Courses (All ET majors)*
Applied Statics (3)
Electric Networks, with Lab (4)
Engineering Graphics, including CAD, with Lab (3)
Engineering Problems with Computer Literacy, with Lab (3)
Manufacturing Processes/Materials, with Lab (2)
Properties of Materials, with Lab (3)
Computer Programming with Applications, with Lab (4)
* The typical math level for lower-division ET technical courses is college
algebra and trigonometry, except for statics which requires a corequisite of
tech calc I, or equivalent. For programs that require dynamics, its prerequisite
is tech calc I, or equivalent.