June 22, 2003
June 22, 2003
June 25, 2003
8.496.1 - 8.496.11
Engineering Design Education: Surveys of Demand and Supply
Rudolph J. Eggert Boise State University
Two surveys were conducted in 2002 to learn more about the demand and supply of specific engineering design topics and activities, resulting in 1006 industry respondents and 182 academic respondents.
Academia appears to be meeting industry’s demand for Engineering Design Specifications, Teamwork and Overall Design Process topics. However, there appears to be a supply gap in academia’s current coverage of Creativity Methods, Project management, Design for Manufacture, Design for Assembly, and Product Testing. Industry has a higher demand for Individual Design Projects and Interdisciplinary Design Project activities, in relation to Academia’s current coverage. Also, academia appears to overemphasize oral and written design report activities.
A majority of respondents indicated that 25% or less of the department’s faculty participates in planning, monitoring and coordinating the design stem. And lastly, personal computers are the preferred choice of CAD platform in industry and academia as compared to Unix stations.
Developing an engineering design curriculum to meet the needs of industry for higher quality products is quite a challenge for any institution. When preparing revisions to its curriculum, a department faculty will consider input from a variety of sources including Senior Design Project mentors/sponsors, recent graduates, and industry advisory council members. The advice provides focus and helps to fine-tune the curriculum. Oftentimes, industry asks academia for more than it has the resources to deliver. Contrary to this apparent increased “demand” for more education is the trend by university administrators to downsize the 4-yr degree to about 128 semester credit hours, thereby decreasing the available time to “supply” the education desired.
Four major issues arise in the development of the design stem. What design topics (principles, methods, theories etc.) should be taught? When, in the typical four-year program, should they be taught? How (pedagogical methods) should they be taught? And lastly, how should we measure the outcomes. These issues are not new. Participants of the 1996 NSF Strategic Planning Workshop (NSF 1) concluded that the three most important design education needs were: 1. Create teachable principles of design process, methods, and tools. 2. Devise innovative pedagogical methods for engineering design, and 3. Measure effectiveness, correctness, and relevance of teaching methods.
Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education
Eggert, R. (2003, June), Engineering Design Education: Surveys Of Demand And Supply Paper presented at 2003 Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. https://peer.asee.org/12319
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2003 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015