Ten years of ABET EC 2000: One person\u27s reflections

ABET accreditation criteria changed substantially at the turn of the century changing from a prescriptive, curricular-based standard to an outcomes-based approach for accreditation. The new system named Engineering Criteria (EC) 2000 required engineering programs to consult with their constituencies to establish program objectives and outcomes that define what their graduates will attain several years after graduation and at the time of graduation, respectively. The accreditation process involves assessing the degree to which graduates are attaining these outcomes and objectives and using the results to make changes and continuously improve the program. Most engineering programs have now been through two cycles of accreditation under the new system. There have been some growing pains, adjustments, and changes to the accreditation process since it was initially implemented. This paper is in direct response to the session proposed by the CE Division of ASEE on the reflections of ABET over the past ten years from the perspective of program directors, program evaluators and members of the ASCE Committee on Curricula and Accreditation. This paper offers the perspectives and reflections from a full professor who has directed two different programs (Civil Engineering and Architectural Engineering) at two different locations through successful accreditation visits under this system. The author is also a seasoned program evaluator who has made ten ABET accreditation visits (one per year) to ten different CE and AE programs over the past decade

How the new architectural engineering program criteria differs from the new civil engineering program criteria

There are 17 ABET accredited architectural engineering (AE) programs in the country and over 200 civil engineering (CE) programs. To gain accreditation, a program must meet the ABET general criteria common to every engineering program and specific criteria that are unique to an individual program. The American Society of Civil Engineers is the lead professional society in this effort for both CE and AE programs. Recently the Civil Engineers rewrote and implemented the Civil Engineering ABET Program Criteria to incorporate changes in the ABET general criteria, the publication of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge I, and the work accomplished on ASCE Policy 465. This year, a subcommittee of the Architectural Engineering Institute Academic Council rewrote the ABET Program Criteria for Architectural Engineering (AE) Programs. In the process, the writers consulted many of the same documents used by the civil engineers and faced many of the same issues. On some of these issues, the AE community chose to follow the same path as the civil engineers and on other issues chose an alternative path. This paper examines the new AE Program criteria and reports on the issues and decisions that were made to create it. Comparisons are made with the existing program criteria and the new civil engineering program criteria. The issues include the recognized sub-disciplines of architectural engineering, the minimum degree of attainment in each sub-discipline, the role of architecture, the role of design, the need for flexibility to preserve the uniqueness of the various programs, and the minimum requirements for math, science and engineering fundamentals. The CE Division will hopefully benefit from seeing the similar challenges in developing program criteria faced by a totally different group and the decisions they reached

Diversity, Inclusion and the ExCEEd Teaching Workshop

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Excellence in Civil Engineering Education (ExCEEd) Teaching Workshops are currently in their 20th year of existence and have been highly successful. There is a growing body of literature on creating a multi-cultural classroom that celebrates diversity, accounts for the global differences and experiences of students, and deliberately fosters inclusivity. This paper examines the content of the existing culturally inclusive literature and quantifies how much is already present in the current ETW curriculum. It then suggests how much more could be included if a deliberate effort is made to include diversity and inclusivity into the workshop content. It suggests what elements in the culturally inclusive literature are not feasible to include in a one-week workshop. Finally, it makes recommendations on how to best revise the current ETW to include and incorporate this content without lengthening the time of the workshop

Gender representation in architectural engineering - Is it all in the name?

Under-representation of women in engineering is of concern as the decreasing supply of qualified engineers continues to plague the nation’s advancement. Understanding what factors influence choices of engineering disciplines has the potential for altering education to accommodate a more diverse student body that can be successful in engineering. University statistics reflect that the Architectural Engineering program at this school is comprised of 35% women, while the other engineering programs attract at best 20% women and at worst 5% women. The Architectural Engineering program at this university is in fact one of the most intense structural engineering programs in the country requiring 203 quarter units to complete and upper division courses in integrated design of buildings using concrete, steel, wood and masonry along with seismic design of buildings. The department is however housed in the College of Architecture and Environmental Design rather than the College of Engineering. This overall research study explores the learning styles of different engineering disciplines and the learning styles preferred by students who select these disciplines as academic majors and careers. The work in progress centers on surveys of students in engineering programs at this university. A preliminary survey of women in the ARCE department was administered to discover why these women personally chose ARCE as a major, why they persist in the major, and why they think women are so largely represented in the major. A more detailed survey will follow from this work which specifically investigates the three components of the integrated learning style taxonomy – motivation, engagement and learning processes of both women and men in the ARCE department. Future work will investigate other engineering disciplines that represent maximum differential in representation of women from that of ARCE at this university as well as engineering programs at other universities

Motivating and investing in the Freshmen: Paving the way for the future

This paper describes an introductory freshman experience course, “Introduction to Building Systems” that was seven years in the making and meets several critical goals for this engineering department. As one of their very first courses, this two-unit course is taken in the Fall quarter by every incoming freshman, which translates into an annual enrollment of 50 to 120 students, depending on the year. Meeting twice a week, the first meeting is in a large lecture format where all of the students are together and are introduced to the topic for the week which includes structural systems, timber, concrete, steel, earth/foundations, building envelopes, electrical systems, and mechanical systems. The second meeting is a two-hour activity where the students are sub-divided into separate sections of not more than 24 students. During these hands-on activities, students place and test concrete anchor bolts, build and test wooden connections, weld steel plates and test their strength, complete an exercise using funicular shapes, use the digital fabrication lab and 3-D printers to create and test a truss structure, create a video on a past building system failure or disaster, measure slopes and follow the drainage of a specified area, wire an electrical circuit, and tour the electrical/mechanical systems of a major building. The course is team-taught by a tenured faculty member and the department head. Industry support from Hilti and Simpson StrongTie provides materials and expertise for two of the activities. University support assists with the welding, digital fabrication, and building tour activities. Some of the activities become round-robin stations to further sub-divide the students into 8 or 12 person groups to allow every student to physically participate. The culminating exercise involves the design and construction of a structure using K’nex toys where students experience the design-bid-build project delivery method by role playing the architect, project manager and contractor. The course provides the opportunity to introduce engineering ethics and professional responsibility to the freshman. The students participate in a learning-style inventory to better understand how they learn, thus introducing the goal of life-long learning. The course deliberately tries to develop the camaraderie of a cohort at the earliest possible stage and allows students to feel that they are part of the department and the major. It also provides motivation and excitement for the profession that lies ahead while the students are working their way through calculus, physics and architecture studios. A review of the literature addresses how this course aligns with and differs from other existing introductory experience courses. Refinements in the course have been made based on formalized student assessment data. Over time, the effect of the course will be assessed through retention data

Using K’nex to Teach Large Scale Structures to Architects and ConstructionStudents

The College of Architecture and Environmental Design at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly SLO) is the only college in the nation that includes architecture (ARCH), architectural engineering (ARCE) and construction management (CM) programs in the same college. Given the unique mix of disciplines and the emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration, the ARCH and CM students take a five-course structural engineering sequence from the ARCE department. A challenge of these courses is to maintain some degree of computational rigor while offering a broader perspective that will benefit the ARCH and CM students. This paper reports on one means of accomplishing this using K’nex toys to illustrate the entire design -construction sequence and relate how structure fits into this process during the sequence’s culminating course

Holistic Interdisciplinary Design - Everyone Does Everything (Engineering Students as Sculptors)

The ability to offer students an interdisciplinary experience under a team work setting is invaluable in preparation for a career in the built environment. A hands-on approach coupled with a real project presents unique opportunities in student learning. Learning in regards to the dynamics of team personalities, deadlines, approval procedures, and deliverables. One such hands-on based real project was to design, build, and install an 800 lb., 20 ft. long, and 10 ft. tall sculpture. The sculpture was to be built of recycled steel of a mustang in 10 weeks for the University’s library Spring 2016 exhibit. The project gave the students direct exposure to the phases required to take a highly constrained construction project from conception to completion (Impacted Project Delivery). Under the constraints of limited time, limited budget, unique materials, university regulatory requirements, and confined site location (second floor of library), the students learned how impacted constraints affect the design, engineering, and construction process. This paper outlines the methods used by the faculty adviser to facilitate student success

A structural engineering master\u27s program -- The trials and tribulations

This paper is specifically intended for the advertised session in the CE Division on “current issues affecting graduate CE programs such as double dipping, accreditation of masters programs, combined MS/BS degree, research versus practice oriented masters degrees, etc.” California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) is a predominately undergraduate university. Cal Poly has recently expanded master’s level graduate programs to support advanced education and faculty-student professional development opportunities. The Architectural Engineering Department in the College of Architecture and Environmental Design (CAED) started a structural engineering master’s degree program six years ago and has graduated five separate classes. Since its inception, this master’s program has dealt with a variety of issues to include accreditation, blending the program with the undergraduate degree, offering a non-project option, managing the program through continuing education, collaborating with other departments, partnering with industry, and accommodating students who did not graduate from the Cal Poly ARCE undergraduate program. This paper offers a history of this masters program, describes these various issues, presents the current state of the program and makes recommendations for its future

New civil engineering program criteria: How the sausage is being made

The American Society of Civil Engineers organized the Civil Engineering Program Criteria Task Committee in October 2012 whose charge is to determine if the current ABET Civil Engineering Program Criteria (CEPC) should be changed to reflect one or more of the 24 outcomes of the second edition of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge published in 2008. After over a year of conference calls and face to face meetings, the committee has drafted and disseminated a proposed CEPC. This paper chronicles the development of the proposed criteria by sharing a review of the literature, the committee’s methodology and process, the key issues that emerged, the resulting proposed criteria, and the future work of the committee