A Comparison between the Different Accredited Architectural Engineering Programs through ABET and CEAB

Rachel Mosier; Rania Al-Hammoud

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: Architectural Engineering Division (ARCHE) Technical Session 1
Tagged Division: Architectural Engineering Division (ARCHE)
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/46428

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Rachel Mosier Oklahoma State University orcid.org/0000-0001-8937-978X

visit author page

Dr. Rachel Mosier is an Associate Professor in the Construction Engineering Technology program at Oklahoma State University, with a background in structural engineering and project management. Dr. Mosier has received regional and international teaching awards through the Associated Schools of Construction.

visit author page

biography

Rania Al-Hammoud MpowerU Training & Consultancy Inc.

visit author page

Rania Al-Hammoud is a lecturer and the current associate chair of undergraduate studies at the civil & environmental engineering department at university of waterloo. Dr. Al-Hammoud has a civil engineering background with research focusing on materials and the rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures. She also has passion for engineering education and has published widely in this area. She cares about the success and well-being of her students, thus always being creative with the teaching methods in the classroom. Outside the classroom, she is an active person, with the following hobbies: hiking, biking and dancing.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

The increasing recognition of sustainable and energy-efficient buildings in the construction industry has led to significant developments in the field of building technology. As a consequence, there has been a notable abundance of undergraduate architectural engineering programs aimed at preparing future professionals for the evolving demands of the industry. This paper endeavors to contribute to the ongoing discourse regarding the state of Architectural Engineering education in higher institutions. Building upon prior research, it adopts a broader perspective by examining accredited programs across Canada, the United States, and internationally, with the aim of facilitating a comparative analysis. In the context of this study, several disparities emerged when examining the architectural engineering programs at various institutions. One key observation is the diversity of specializations or areas of emphasis offered by different universities within the field of architectural engineering. These specializations often reflect the unique strengths and priorities of each institution, encompassing aspects such as sustainable design, structural engineering, HVAC systems, or construction management. This diversity in specialization options underscores the flexibility and adaptability of architectural engineering programs to cater to the evolving industry needs. Another notable difference lies in the educational experiences provided by these programs. Some universities incorporate mandatory studio courses, which offer students hands-on design and project-based learning opportunities. These studios enable students to apply theoretical knowledge in practical contexts, fostering creativity and problem-solving skills. Additionally, internships or co-op programs are often integrated into the curriculum, allowing students to gain real-world experience and establish connections within the industry. These experiential components vary in duration and intensity, further contributing to the distinctiveness of each program. Consequently, the duration of architectural engineering programs varies among institutions. Some programs are designed to be completed in a traditional four-year timeline, while others, particularly those with extensive co-op or internship components, may extend to five years or more. These variations in program duration are reflective of the emphasis placed on practical experience and industry readiness, as well as the regional or institutional norms. This paper seeks to delve deeper into these differences and similarities among accredited architectural engineering programs. By doing so, it aims to identify how each program aligns with the evolving needs of the architectural engineering industry. This analysis is crucial in ensuring that graduates from these programs are well-prepared to address the challenges posed by sustainable and energy-efficient building practices, and that they can contribute effectively to the ever-changing landscape of the construction and design sectors. Ultimately, this research serves as a valuable resource for both educational institutions and industry stakeholders, providing insights into the strengths and areas of improvement in architectural engineering education.

Citation
Format

Mosier, R., & Al-Hammoud, R. (2024, June), A Comparison between the Different Accredited Architectural Engineering Programs through ABET and CEAB Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/46428

TY - CPAPER
AB - The increasing recognition of sustainable and energy-efficient buildings in the construction industry has led to significant developments in the field of building technology. As a consequence, there has been a notable abundance of undergraduate architectural engineering programs aimed at preparing future professionals for the evolving demands of the industry. This paper endeavors to contribute to the ongoing discourse regarding the state of Architectural Engineering education in higher institutions. Building upon prior research, it adopts a broader perspective by examining accredited programs across Canada, the United States, and internationally, with the aim of facilitating a comparative analysis.
In the context of this study, several disparities emerged when examining the architectural engineering programs at various institutions. One key observation is the diversity of specializations or areas of emphasis offered by different universities within the field of architectural engineering. These specializations often reflect the unique strengths and priorities of each institution, encompassing aspects such as sustainable design, structural engineering, HVAC systems, or construction management. This diversity in specialization options underscores the flexibility and adaptability of architectural engineering programs to cater to the evolving industry needs.
Another notable difference lies in the educational experiences provided by these programs. Some universities incorporate mandatory studio courses, which offer students hands-on design and project-based learning opportunities. These studios enable students to apply theoretical knowledge in practical contexts, fostering creativity and problem-solving skills. Additionally, internships or co-op programs are often integrated into the curriculum, allowing students to gain real-world experience and establish connections within the industry. These experiential components vary in duration and intensity, further contributing to the distinctiveness of each program.
Consequently, the duration of architectural engineering programs varies among institutions. Some programs are designed to be completed in a traditional four-year timeline, while others, particularly those with extensive co-op or internship components, may extend to five years or more. These variations in program duration are reflective of the emphasis placed on practical experience and industry readiness, as well as the regional or institutional norms.
This paper seeks to delve deeper into these differences and similarities among accredited architectural engineering programs. By doing so, it aims to identify how each program aligns with the evolving needs of the architectural engineering industry. This analysis is crucial in ensuring that graduates from these programs are well-prepared to address the challenges posed by sustainable and energy-efficient building practices, and that they can contribute effectively to the ever-changing landscape of the construction and design sectors. Ultimately, this research serves as a valuable resource for both educational institutions and industry stakeholders, providing insights into the strengths and areas of improvement in architectural engineering education.
AU - Rachel Mosier
AU - Rania Al-Hammoud
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - A Comparison between the Different Accredited Architectural Engineering Programs through ABET and CEAB
UR - https://peer.asee.org/46428
ER -