The Role of Engineering Design in the Engineering Curriculum

The proper balance between science, engineering science, and design is one of the issues engineers and engineering educators has debated at length over the last 125 years (Seely, 2005). In essence, this is a debate on the nature of engineering and the best preparation for professional

practice (The Design Council, 1991).

Hands-on apprenticeship is the original engineering educating means in very early time. The practical element was strong until roughly before the last half century. The reason, as Prados (1998) analyzed, is that new technological development at that time such as atomic energy, radar, etc. called for much stronger foundation in mathematics, basic science and engineering science than had been provided by most pre-war curricula.

In the US, immediately following the 1955 Grinter report, engineering curricula swung from an applied practice-oriented focus to a mathematical, academic, engineering science focus and hands-on engineering experiences were replaced with additional math, physics and science courses (Seely, 2005; Sheppard, 1997). Afterwards, engineering curricula have been based largely on the “engineering science” model over the last five decades, in which engineering is taught only after a solid basis in science and mathematics. The first two years of the curriculum are devoted primarily to the basics sciences, which served as the foundation for two years of “engineering science” or “analysis” where students apply scientific principles to technological problems (Dym et al., 2005).

The UK engineering education experienced a similar swing from practice focus to science focus, which can be seen in the Figure 2.3 below proposed by Harvey and Baldwin (1994) which shows the contrast of the skills and knowledge used by the 19th century engineers with that of the graduates from many of the present science dominated engineering courses:

Design Design Science Science Manufacture

Manufacture In the 18th _{& 19}th _{century Present (1990s)}

In the course of this period, the problem of the lack of understanding of design caused by the “engineering science” model in engineering curricula was noticed by engineering educators and measures were taken. For example, in the UK, a series of official documents including Moulton Report (1976), Finniston Report (1980) and Grant Report (1985) were issued requiring that

Engineering should be taught in the context of design, so that design is a continuous thread running through the teaching of undergraduate engineering. Courses should expose the student to a proper mixture of analysis, synthesis, conceptual design and other wider issues. (Moulton Report, 1976)

Similarly, around the same time, US engineering educators produced several studies, one of which was a recommendation to incorporate design throughout the four year curriculum (Sheppard, 1997).

However, in the US, by the middle 1980’s, increased pressure to include more technology in the curriculum, particularly computer-related technology, squeezed already packed curricula and design element was decreased accordingly (Sheppard, 1997). In the UK, a survey and review on the engineering design education on undergraduate degree courses in the UK universities and polytechnics by the Fellowship of Engineering (the original name for the Royal Academy of Engineering) in 1991 also showed some problems in the engineering design education including the varying extent of design inclusion, small number of dedicated design teachers, heavy teaching load and little time for personal research, etc (Black, 1991). Even today, studies showed that design faculty still feel that the leaders of engineering departments and schools are unable or unwilling to recognize the intellectual complexities and resources demanded to support good design education (Todd et al., 2004).

2.3.3.2. Current Development of Engineering Design in Engineering Education

In the US, since the late 1980s, there has been a national movement to increase the amount of exposure undergraduate students to engineering design. This has been particularly true at the freshman level (Sheppard, 1997; Dym, 2005). Sheppard (1997) summarized some key reasons

for the movement, two of which are also applicable worldwide:

First, the development of educational theory

Design education, when based on open-ended problem-solving and authentic projects, is consistent with current thinking about learning in the school of Constructivism which holds that knowledge is constructed from experience. In Constructivism, learning results from a personal interpretation, is active with meaning developed on the basis of experience, is collaborative with meaning negotiated from multiple perspectives and should be situated in realistic contexts. In addition, testing should be integrated with the task. There is an increasing collaboration of engineering professoriate with cognitive scientists in a meaningful way to create effective learning and teaching environment and experiences (Newstetter et al., 2001; Sheppard, 1997).

Second, the design requirements of new accreditation criteria

Almost all the new accreditation criteria emphasize the importance of design competence in engineering graduates. In the US, an increasing awareness that engineering curricula often lack a sufficient design component has led to ABET’s increased emphasis on design, and the ABET design requirements provide the common thread that links capstone design courses for all engineering disciplines (Dutson, 1997; Dym, 2005). In the UK, design is a continuous emphasis by the accreditation body of the professional institutions since 1980s. The UK SPEC 2004 took form of outcomes-based standards, like the US’ ABET and Australia’s accreditation criteria, to emphasize what outcomes are expected of graduate engineers. Generally, it is the institution’s responsibility to articulate the goals of its program, the logic used in the selection of engineering topic to meet the goals and identify the major, meaningful design experiences and how they are integrated throughout the curriculum (QAA, 2006; Sheppard, 1997).

At present, design is widely considered to be a central activity of engineering (Dym, 2005; Simon, 1996), and it has been recommended that engineering should be taught in the context of design (RAE, 2005). Many educators argued that, ideally, design should be used as a means of integrating all parts of the engineering study program (Vernon, 2000).