English Evol of Engin.2

Canadian Academy of Engineering
130 Albert Street, Suite 1414
Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5G4

Tel: (613) 235-9056

Fax: (613) 235-6861

E-mail: acadeng@ccpe.ca
Internet: www.acad-eng-gen.ca

E v o l u t i o n o f E n g i n e e r i n g

E d u c a t i o n i n C a n a d a

ISBN: 0-9682770–5–5

A R e p o r t o f

T h e C a n a d i a n A c a d e m y o f E n g i n e e r i n g

Prepared by a task force chaired by

Dr. Arthur Heidebrecht, FCAE

December 1999

A d d i t i o n a l S p o n s o r s

Bombardier Inc.

Dofasco Inc.

Dupont Canada Inc.

Imperial Oil Ltd.

General Electric Canada Inc.

Motorola Canada Ltd.

The Canadian Academy of Engineering wishes

to thank the following organizations who have

contributed to the costs of publishing

and disseminating this report.

M a j o r S p o n s o r s

C o n t e n t s

Mission Statement ............................................................. iii

Abstract ............................................................................. iv

Executive Summary ........................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................ 3

Premises ............................................................................. 5

Recommendations .............................................................. 6

Implementation ................................................................ 14

References ........................................................................ 17

Task force composition .................................................... 17

iii

M i s s i o n S t a t e m e n t

The Canadian Academy of Engineering is an independent, self-governing and
non-profit organization established in 1987 to serve the nation in matters of
engineering concern. The Fellows of the Academy are professional engineers
from all disciplines and are elected on the basis of their distinguished service and
contribution to society, to the country and to the profession. The total number of
Fellows at any one time may not exceed 250.

The Academy is self-financing and does not receive grants from governments
although it may accept to carry out studies and surveys on a contract basis. The
Fellows of the Academy can therefore bring into corporate activity, in a com-
pletely independent manner, the wide experience and expert knowledge which
they have acquired as practicing members within the engineering profession of
Canada, a profession now with 160,000 members.

The mission of the Canadian Academy of Engineering is to enhance, through the
application and adaptation of science and engineering principles, the promotion
of well-being and the creation of wealth in Canada.

The Academy fulfills this mission by:

• promoting increased awareness of the role of engineering in society,

• recognizing excellence in engineering contributions to the Canadian

economy,

• advising on engineering education, research, development and innovation,

• promoting industrial competitiveness while preserving the environment in

Canada and abroad,

• speaking out on issues relevant to engineering in Canada and abroad,

• developing and maintaining effective relations with other professional

engineering organizations, academies and learned societies in Canada,
and abroad.

A b s t r a c t

Recognizing the changing role of engineering in society, the Canadian Academy
of Engineering established a task force to make recommendations on the roles of
engineering faculties. The report of the task force, while identifying a number of
important roles, focuses on the further broadening of engineering education.

Its recommendations call for evolutionary changes to ensure that this broadening
actually takes place through: ensuring that breadth of learning is a major thrust of
engineering education, emphasizing the development of learning skills in engi-
neering students and ensuring that faculty members have broadening-oriented
vision, values and behaviour.

Engineering faculties should also participate in university-wide liberal education
and in improving the technological literacy of the general public. The report also
addresses the role of research in engineering faculties, particularly in relation to
the life preparation of the graduate students. Implementation of the report’s
recommendations is a challenge for engineering deans and leaders in Canadian
industry, business and government.

Evolution of Engineering
Education in Canada

Executive Summary

In 1998 the Canadian Academy of Engineering established a Task Force to study
and make recommendations on the roles in which Engineering Faculties are or
should be involved. While a number of important roles were identified, this report
focuses on education-related aspects and on establishing general directions for the
future evolution of engineering education in Canada.

Engineering faculties in Canada have a fine record of accomplishments and have
adapted well to rapid changes in science and technology in spite of a continuing
environment of serious funding constraints. The new millennium presents them
with increasing pressures and challenges arising from a broadening of the roles
that engineers fill: in emerging engineering disciplines; in innovation and entre-
preneurship; in international markets; in team leadership and interdisciplinary
activity; and in protection of health, safety and the environment. Graduates of
engineering faculties are needed to serve society not only in the traditional technical
capacities which they need to master well but increasingly in non-technical
leadership capacities.

The fundamental direction of this report is toward further broadening of engineering
education. However, there is little flexibility to accommodate these pressures for
broadening of the undergraduate curriculum and for incorporating the continual
expansion of relevant technology within current time and resource constraints.

The report contains five recommendations which call for fundamental evolutionary
changes to ensure that this broadening will actually take place:

1. Engineering faculties should ensure that breadth of learning, beyond the

technical aspects of the specialist engineering discipline, is a major thrust
in engineering education.

The most important and fundamental role for engineering faculties is to
prepare young people to work in various capacities in an evolving world,
providing them with an education which is technically focused and has
adequate breadth. Narrow specialization is not considered to be an appropriate
response to expansion in technology. Society requires that engineering graduates
be broadly educated, that they be knowledgeable about the society in
which they live and work, that they be sensitive to the economic, social,
political, environmental, cultural and ethical dimensions of their work.

The undergraduate curriculum should emphasize problem solving and
design. Increased postgraduate opportunities and an emphasis on lifelong
learning can provide both specialist information content and further broadening.

2. Engineering faculties should emphasize the development of the learning

skills of their students.

A high priority should be placed on “learning how to learn.” Acquisition
of the skills of self directed learning is important in preparing for life after
leaving the university.

3. Leaders of engineering faculties should ensure that their faculty members

have the vision, values and behaviours needed for their evolving role in
preparing undergraduate and graduate students to function effectively in
our rapidly changing world.

The desired broadening must take place largely within the engineering
curriculum. It cannot be left to faculty in other parts of the university, to
the more liberally minded engineering faculty members or to part-time
faculty brought in to teach specific courses. It should permeate each
component of the program. This requires active participation of professors
in developing their own skills in education and in developing suitable
educational experiences for their students. Access to specific preparation
in teaching and learning pedagogy should be provided.

Criteria and practices on tenure and promotion must be such as to promote
these broadening activities. Faculty must be assured that their efforts in
these directions will enhance rather than impede their career progress.

4. Research conducted in engineering faculties should be characterized by

excellence, by relevance to industrial and social issues and by concern for
the life preparation of the graduate students involved.

Conducting quality research and design enhances the learning of both
faculty and students and contributes to the innovation base for industry
and society. Beyond the intrinsic value of the research results, there is a
need for increased recognition of the value of the research experience to
the professional development of the graduate students. Most employers
will be primarily interested in the “people products” of graduate programs.

5. Engineering faculties should participate in providing liberal education

opportunities for all university students, and in improving the technological
literacy of the general public.

In a society which is so profoundly influenced by technology, the techno-
logical literacy of many university graduates is open to question. Engineering
professors regularly deal with the interface between science and society and
are in a position to contribute to liberal education of students and the public.

The Academy wants to see implementation of the directions charted in this report.
The key players in implementation are the engineering deans who have direct
responsibility for leadership in engineering education; and leaders in Canadian
industry, business and government who have the responsibility to ensure that the
importance of these directions to the health of the Canadian economy and society
are fully appreciated and that the necessary resources are allocated.

Introduction

Throughout its history, the Academy has focussed on engineering education as the
primary key to improvements in the service which the engineering profession
provides for society. “Engineering Education in Canada” was the subject of an
extensive report by the Academy in 1993

. The Canadian Council of Professional

Engineers and the National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science
produced an important report on engineering education in 1992

. Also relevant to

education were the Academy reports on Lifelong Learning for Professional
Engineers in 1997

and on Wealth Through Technological Entrepreneurship in

1998

. Valuable input from engineering students was presented in the report,

Feedback on Engineering Related Issues at the Canadian Congress of Engineer-
ing Students.

There is substantial agreement among these reports on general

principles and many of the recommendations of these reports have been addressed
by engineering faculties. However, implementation has been hampered by a
number of factors many of which arise from a shortage of resources.

Accordingly, the Canadian Academy of Engineering established a Task Force in
April 1998 to study the roles in which engineering faculties are or should be
involved, and to make recommendations. These several roles relate to education
of engineering students, contributions to useful knowledge through engineering
research, interaction with industry in the design and development of new products
and systems, contributions to the innovation and creation of new industry, educa-
tion of other university students, continuing education of practising engineers and
informing the public on issues of technology and its impact on society. There are
many issues of immediate concern associated with these roles. While all of these
roles are important, it became evident that adequate treatment of all could not be
readily achieved in a single implementable report. It was then decided to focus the
present report on education-related aspects, on establishing desirable general
directions for the future evolution of engineering education in Canada and on
measures to implement the necessary developments.

Engineering faculties in Canada enjoy a fine record of accomplishment both in
the careers of their graduates and in their research contributions to engineering
knowledge. Over the past decades they have adapted well to rapid changes in
science and technology. However, the pressures and demands on these faculties

and on the present engineering curricula continue to grow. The time is opportune
for a review of how these faculties should evolve to meet these extended demands.
Particular factors that lead to this review are:

— the broadened range of the roles that engineering graduates fill in society
— the rapid expansion of technology in the established engineering

disciplines

— the emergence of new engineering disciplines such as bioengineering
— the high demand for graduates in the information technology industry
— the need for increased interaction of engineering professors with industry
— the need for more engineers with leadership capability in Canadian

corporations

— the need for the creation of new technology-based enterprises in Canada
— the increased role which Canadian engineering plays in international

markets

— the concern of society with matters of health, safety and environmental

protection

The task faced by Canadian engineering faculties is a particularly daunting one in
view of these increased demands coupled with the serious funding constraints that
most of them have experienced in recent years. In spite of these constraints,
notable progress has been achieved at many institutions providing models for
future evolution. However, the flexibility of the engineering education system to
respond to new demands is severely limited. It is not feasible to accommodate the
pressures for broadening of the undergraduate curriculum and for incorporating
the continual expansion of relevant technology within current time and resource
constraints. Decisions among options for the evolution of the Canadian engineering
education system over the next decade are needed if it is to respond adequately to
the needs of our economy and our society.

The fundamental direction of this report is toward further broadening of engineering
education. The recommendations of this report call for fundamental evolutionary
changes in engineering education in Canada. These cultural changes are consid-
ered to be both desirable and necessary if engineering is to make its proper future
contribution to the wealth and health of Canadian society and its environment.
Many aspects of this evolution are already underway in Canadian engineering
faculties but even with the enthusiastic involvement of engineering deans and
professors these changes will not occur unless adequate resources are provided.

The Academy’s objective has been to arrive at a set of principles and directions
which will have the concurrence and support of both the Fellows of the Academy
and the Engineering Deans. Reactions to early drafts of this report were obtained
from a number of Engineering Deans, from several Academy Fellows in industry
and from the Canadian Federation of Engineering Students. The report was

discussed at a meeting in May, 1999 with the National Council of Deans of
Engineering and Applied Sciences providing further valuable input. A penultimate
draft was prepared for discussion in the Annual General Meeting of the Academy
in June, 1999. At that meeting, the Fellows unanimously endorsed the general
principles of this report while providing additional input and recognizing that
many matters of detail would have to be addressed in the process of implementa-
tion. This draft was sent to the Deans and input received has been incorporated
into the report.

The Academy plans to mobilize the support of its Fellows together with that of
leaders of industry to assist the engineering academic community in persuading
governments, universities, industry, the engineering profession and the public of
the need for these changes and in requesting from them the necessary resources.

Premises

The fundamental basis for the evolution of engineering education developed in
this report arises from the definition of engineering adopted by the Canadian
Academy of Engineering:

Engineering is a profession concerned with the creation of new and
improved systems, processes and products to serve human needs. The
central focus of engineering is design, an art entailing the exercise of
ingenuity, imagination, knowledge, skill, discipline and judgement based
on experience. The practice of professional engineering requires sensitivity
to the physical potential of materials, to the logic of mathematics, to the
constraints of human resources, physical resources and economics, to the
minimization of risk, to the protection of the public and the environment.

Some of the basic premises for this report are:

• Graduates of engineering faculties are needed to serve society not only in

the traditional technical capacities which they need to master well but
increasingly in non-technical leadership capacities.

• The most important and fundamental role for engineering faculties is to

prepare young people to work in these various capacities in an evolving
world, providing them with an education which is technically focussed
and has adequate breadth.

• Narrow specialization is not considered to be an appropriate response to

expansion in technology.

• Conducting quality research to enhance the learning of both faculty and

students and to contribute to the innovation base for industry and society is
a very important role for engineering faculties.

• Engineering faculties are to be sensitive to the needs of their several

stakeholders: students, faculty, the university, the engineering profession,
industry, employers, society and governments.

Recommendations

1. Engineering faculties should ensure that breadth of learning, beyond the

technical aspects of the specialist engineering discipline, is a major thrust
in engineering education.

The tremendous growth of technology has resulted in pressure on engineering
faculties to pack more and more technical content into their undergraduate
engineering curricula. Also, engineering graduates are increasingly required to
contribute in areas well beyond the technological dimensions. Modern society
requires that engineering graduates be broadly educated, that they be knowledge-
able about the society in which they live and work, that they be sensitive to the
economic, social, political, environmental, cultural and ethical dimensions of
their work. In Canada, there is a particular need for graduates with entrepreneurial
skills to develop new enterprises on which future economic and social wealth
depends

Employers of graduating engineers seek technologically-based, broadly-educated
people with good oral and written communication skills, ability to work as part of
a team, potential to take a leadership role, a basic knowledge of business and
management and a sensitivity to the economic and social impact of engineering
activity. Input from graduates after a few years of experience, particularly those in
small industry, supports inclusion of emphasis on these factors in curricula.

Expansion of emphasis on these broadening aspects of engineering coupled with
the continual expansion of technical knowledge requires a re-examination of the
context in which Canadian engineers are educated.

Over the years the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board has promoted
the broadening of engineering curricula with its requirement that a minimum of
one-eighth of the time in the four-year undergraduate curriculum be devoted to
non-technical areas including course material on economics, communication and
the social impact of technology. The emphasis given to these “complementary
studies” and also their breadth and effectiveness are now considered to be
insufficient to provide the quality of education which is required for many of the
roles that engineering graduates are required to undertake. The issue goes well
beyond the contact hours provided. It concerns the need for students to integrate
these extended dimensions into their engineering activities, projects and

assignments. It concerns the need for students to study in an environment that
develops inquiring minds and positive attitudes about these non-technological
dimensions of their university education. Experience reported to the task force
has shown that courses taken from elsewhere in the university may not produce
the broadening that is desired. Rather, these broadening aspects need to be
closely integrated into the approach to engineering problems and designs.

Many graduates of engineering programs enter areas such as finance, management,
law and administration. As the broadening aspects of the engineering under-
graduate experience are enhanced, engineering programs can become more
attractive to students who wish to be broadly educated but who also recognize the
importance in the modern world of a technological basis for such an education.
This trend may be of particular importance in attracting more women to engineering.

One critical response to this recommendation will be that there is insufficient time
in the normal four-year (or equivalent) undergraduate curriculum to be able to
include more of these broadening aspects without sacrificing the technical
competence of engineering graduates.

The pressure from expansion of technological knowledge has sometimes been met
by increased specialization at the undergraduate level providing a sequence of
technical courses intended to bring the student close to the discipline’s state-of-
the-art upon graduation. This approach is not considered to be appropriate for
undergraduate engineering education.

A detailed solution to this time constraint issue is beyond the scope of this report
but the following general approach is presented for discussion. It is proposed that
four-year undergraduate engineering programs leading to a Bachelor’s degree be
retained with enhanced emphasis on breadth. Coupled with this would be a major
expansion over the next decade of fifth-year programs leading to a professional
Master’s degree and expansion of other postgraduate opportunities.

The approach at the undergraduate stage would focus on identifying and teaching
fundamental concepts and developing the skills of applying these to practical
engineering problems. Emphasis would be placed on problem solving, on design,
on project-based learning and on enhanced learning skills (considered in Recom-
mendation 2). To quote the earlier Academy report

, it is felt that such a program

“can instill a set of concepts, attitudes, skills and habits that become the most
important continuing attributes of an engineer.” Many engineers report that they
have forgotten much of the information content of their engineering programs but
they insist that their continuing effectiveness is due in large measure to the set of
skills and attitudes acquired during their undergraduate engineering education.
The emphasis should be on process rather than information content.

The essence of engineering is design, a multi-disciplinary approach to meeting
economic, social and environmental needs. It is in this context that broadening
is interpreted in this report. Integrating the aspects of this broadening into the
undergraduate curriculum requires intensive interaction of staff with students.
It requires considerably greater resources than are currently provided. The
undergraduate curriculum and experience should be based on the premise that
all graduates will be involved in lifelong continuing education, some formal and
some self directed, following the best practices outlined in the recent Academy
report on lifelong learning

. Access to continuing education courses and work-

shops is important and engineering faculties should be encouraged to increase
their participation in provision of these programs.

In the broader approach which is recommended for undergraduate programs
there may be some reduction in specialist technical information content. This
need not lead to a reduction in the real technical competence of the graduate. It
is felt that, given the appropriate resources and effort, the proposed broadened
programs can more fully meet the spirit of the profession’s accreditation criteria
than is currently feasible.

To compensate for a limitation on technical specialization at undergraduate level
and to continue the broadening of the student, extended offerings of Professional
Masters programs in engineering should be provided either on a full time or part
time basis. Flexibility in access to such programs and cooperation among university
engineering faculties should be encouraged. Integrated five-year dual degree
programs may be advantageous for some students.

In the envisaged evolution it is expected that an increasing proportion of engineer-
ing graduates will acquire postgraduate degree qualifications in engineering or in
related disciplines. For some graduates, the desirable option may be an integrated
dual-degree program combining engineering and management. Some engineering
graduates may be best served through integrated arrangements for entry to a
related profession such as law, medicine or education. Valuable innovative
experience has been acquired by several engineering faculties in Canada in
promoting such programs.

Currently, the dominant formal postgraduate programs are those leading to
research-oriented Masters and Doctoral degrees. While many graduates of these
programs may continue to be employed in research roles, an increasing number
are involved in industrial innovation and the creation of new enterprises. Their
preparation for these roles can be enhanced by the broadening aspects of their
undergraduate education and by inclusion of management and entrepreneurial
concepts in their graduate studies.

Among the professions, engineering is unusual in requiring only a four-year (or

equivalent) formal undergraduate education plus relevant experience prior to
professional registration. Considering the ever increasing breadth and complexity
of engineering practise, it may now be appropriate for the engineering profession
to reassess its requirements for entry to professional status.

2. Engineering faculties should emphasize the development of the learning

skills of their students.

In planning the evolution toward a broader but still technologically-based education,
a high priority should be placed on “learning how to learn.” The engineering
student must certainly have developed a basic competence in a technical discipline by
the time of graduation. But with technology changing so rapidly and the roles of
engineers being so diverse, acquisition of the skills of self directed learning may
be even more important as a preparation for life after leaving the university.

This capability for self-directed learning can be developed through assignments
and projects which require the student to acquire new information, new analytical
tools and new skills. Experience with project-based engineering education has been
shown to produce graduates who are particularly well adapted for roles in small and
medium industry. This approach is consistent with the emphasis on broadly-based
design which should characterize engineering. However, it must be recognized that
this approach requires intensive interpersonal contact between student and staff.

The learning skills acquired as an undergraduate can enhance the effectiveness of
graduate studies and can contribute substantially to success in research programs.

Collaboration of professorial staff with industry can provide a source of student
design projects which require initiative in the application of learning skills and
may also provide useful results for the industrial sponsor. Industry has a responsi-
bility to provide undergraduate students with opportunities for broadening
engineering experience through cooperation in project development and through
involvement in cooperative and internship employment.

There is great potential in using new information technology to assist in this
learning process. The shift toward the development of and reliance on self
directed learning coupled with ready computer access to desired information can
be accompanied by somewhat less reliance on formal lectures. The role of the
instructor can evolve from that of primary provider of information content to that
of facilitator, coach and mentor. The objective in this is to improve the quality of
the educational experience. Engineering is a professional faculty with special
responsibilities for developing professional attitudes and habits.. The professorial
time which is made available for this approach to education must be appropriate
for this professional character.

3. Leaders of engineering faculties should ensure that their faculty members

have the vision, values and behaviours needed for their evolving role in
preparing undergraduate and graduate students to function effectively in
our rapidly changing world.

The evolution toward a more broadly-based engineering education with greater
reliance on the development of learning skills calls for a reexamination of the
roles and preparation of engineering professors. This recommendation calls for
recognition by the leaders in our engineering faculties that they are responsible for
inculcating the appropriate attitudes, values and skills among engineering faculty
members.

Broadening should be emphasized in all aspects of the engineering program. It
can take place much more effectively in engineering classrooms than in
unintegrated non-technical courses. The broadening cannot be left to faculty in
other parts of the university, to the more liberally minded engineering faculty
members or to part-time faculty brought in to teach specific courses. It should
permeate each component of the program.

Engineering professors are normally appointed on the basis of having specialist
knowledge in a field within one of the engineering disciplines. The usual evidence
of that capability is a doctoral degree based largely on demonstration of potential
for conducting original innovative research. This preparation is appropriate for the
role of the professor as researcher and technical expert. It is not necessarily adequate
to provide understanding of the broader aspects of professional engineering
practice or to provide the range of skills which are increasingly required for
effective education for students.

Recruitment of professors after some industrial experience is strongly preferred.
All engineering faculties are encouraged to follow the lead of those schools that
include this preference in their recruiting criteria. However, such recruitment from
industry is not currently feasible in many instances. Competition among universities is
fierce internationally for new staff in certain high demand areas such as computer
and software engineering. Also, engineering schools are in salary competition
with industry in these areas.

Just as engineering faculties in Canada have been able to recruit their undergraduate
students from among the most highly qualified of high school graduates, those
eventually recruited to professorial positions in engineering faculties, whether
from graduate school or industry, are persons of superior quality; they are productive,
conscientious and enthusiastic. They have great potential for development and for
contribution to society. Given the appropriate incentives they will quickly acquire
the skills desired for their evolving professorial roles.

Engineering faculties have a responsibility to provide the facilities, time, mentoring
and guidance which will help these new professors to develop their specialized
skills as broadly-based engineering educators. As the recommendations of this
report are adopted, the educational environment will not be the same as it was
when these persons were students and teaching assistants. They should be made
aware of the objectives and goals adopted for broad technologically-based
education by the engineering faculty and their commitment to these objectives
and goals should be ensured. The achievement of these objectives can be assisted
by providing these faculty members with access to specific preparation in teach-
ing and learning pedagogy.

As noted before, the essence of engineering is the design of processes, products
and services. If engineering professors are to lead students to a capability in this
area, it is important that they understand the variety of issues, criteria and constraints
involved in the design process. To build this understanding, it is important that
professors have basic experience in the professional practice of engineering. This
experience may not be adequately acquired before professorial appointment and
should in any case be continuously renewed. It is important that professors be
able to allocate a reasonable part of their time to practising their profession of
engineering. This can include sabbatical leaves and short periods of practice in
industry and consultancies with a range of clients.

University policies on tenure and promotion generally contain criteria on teaching
and research with consideration given to creative professional practice. While it
might appear that these policies are sufficiently flexible to provide adequate
emphasis on teaching and professional practice, it is well known that published
evidence of research accomplishment has historically been the most important
consideration in most past decisions on professorial tenure and promotion. The
current perception among many newly-appointed junior professors is that they
must give highest priority to research during the typical five-year period leading
to tenure decision.

The desirability of broadening engineering programs may be accepted by many
young engineering professors but they may also have a justifiable concern as to
whether efforts in this direction may jeopardize their careers. This broadening
cannot be properly achieved without the active participation of these young
professors in developing their own skills in education and in developing suitable
educational experiences for their students. They must be assured that their efforts
in promoting the broad design-based process will enhance their career progress.

Implementation of this transformation in the role of engineering professors may
require a restructuring of the policies, and in particular the practices, of recruitment,
appointment, tenure, promotion and reward for engineering professors. The

evaluation processes must measure and give balanced weight to performance and
accomplishment in teaching and mentoring as well as in research, engineering
design and creative professional practice.

It is important that the workload of engineering professors be such that adequate
time can be devoted to the various roles of teaching, coaching, researching and
professional interaction with the wider community. In particular, there must be
time to plan and implement the recommended evolutionary changes. The staff
complement in engineering should be appropriate for its role as a professional
faculty. Considering the intensive nature of the proposed student-centred learning
approach at undergraduate level coupled with expansion of the graduate level
programs, a substantial increase in staff complement and facilities will be required.

4. Research conducted in engineering faculties should be characterized by

excellence, by relevance to industrial and social issues and by concern for
the life preparation of the graduate students involved.

Carrying out quality research is a very important function of a modern university.
Through their research, faculty members contribute to the knowledge base on
which our economy and our social structures increasingly depend. Through
research, concepts are generated that can lead to the generation of new enterprises
and new wealth. It is through research that professors maintain contact and
establish their reputations with the world community of experts who share leading
knowledge in their field. Such expertise is an important national resource.

Engineering faculties are particularly concerned with research which is motivated
by and deals with industrial and societal issues. Research done in collaboration
with industry and business is of particular importance for engineering. In Canada,
some sectors of industry rely heavily on the results of university research because
their own research capabilities are quite limited. The benefits of such collaboration are
partly in the research results that the work brings to the user community but also
in the opportunities for building linkages among graduate students, faculty and
creative leaders in industry.

Most of the research conducted within our engineering faculties is done in
conjunction with graduate students pursuing masters and doctoral degrees. The
new knowledge produced in their research is important to society. However, there
is a need for increased recognition by research supervisors, by graduate school
administrators and by research granting agencies of the value which this research
experience adds to the graduate students in preparation for their professional
careers. While some industries may look to universities as a source of research
knowledge, most employers will be primarily interested in the “people products”
of graduate programs. However valuable the research results may be, engineering

faculty need to recognize that the educational development of their graduate
students is a primary responsibility.

The research experience of a graduate student, particularly at the doctoral level,
may be seen by some primarily as a preparation for an academic appointment or a
position in an industrial research laboratory. Properly structured, it can also be an
excellent phase of preparation for a career as a leader in industrial innovation and
entrepreneurship

It is important that the interpretation of engineering research in engineering
faculties and in research granting agencies include the intellectual challenge of
advanced design in which a unique combination of knowledge and skill results in
a new viable product or process. It is design which distinguishes engineering
from science. It is an activity which in is highly creative and demanding. The
criteria and practices of engineering research granting agencies must be such as
to promote involvement in broadly-based engineering design.

Effective linkage of engineering professors with industry and with the user
community is essential in devising appropriate research and design assignments
for engineering graduate students. Industry leaders should recognize that they
have an important role in providing opportunity for interaction with engineering
professors and their graduate students. Any investment that they make will be
more than compensated in the quality and orientation of the persons that they
recruit as well as the research and design results that they receive.

5. Engineering faculties should participate in providing the technological

aspects of a liberal education for university students, and in improving
the technological literacy of the general public.

Programs in the arts and science disciplines have traditionally been thought of as
providing a broad liberal education. The trend has however been toward increased
specialization, even at the Bachelor’s level. Many universities today are character-
ized by strong but often narrow disciplinary concentrations of teaching and
research. For many students these concentrations tend to act as “silos” in which
breadth and true interdisciplinary learning is implicitly or explicitly discouraged.
In a society which is so profoundly influenced by technology, the technological
literacy of many university graduates is open to question.

Many engineering programs have developed a similar tendency for over-
specialization at the undergraduate level as a response to the expansion of
technological knowledge. This trend has been constrained to a limited extent by
the professional accreditation requirements which call for allocating a portion of
curriculum time to “complementary studies” including economics, communication
skills and the social impact of technology.

Engineering faculties should take the initiative to assist in advancing the techno-
logical literacy of university students. In this technologically dominated world,
every liberally educated person needs a basic framework for understanding how
things work. Engineering professors can be in a preferred position for this role as
they regularly deal with the interface between science and society. The learning
opportunities provided by engineering faculty could include formal courses made
available as electives, short courses or workshops on specific topics and the
development of Internet based resource material which could be used as the basis
for independent study.

Engineering faculties should join forces with their counterparts in arts and
sciences in promoting the value of a broad truly-liberal undergraduate education
and in enhancing two-way learning interactions between the students and staff
of their respective faculties. The ability of engineers to work with and lead multi-
disciplinary teams can be enhanced by the experience of such early university
interactions.

For some students, an integrated program in arts and engineering may be desirable.
There may be a particular advantage in collaboration between engineering and
education faculties in the technological education of future school teachers.

Engineering faculties should also play a leading role in advancing the technological
literacy of the public. It is important that society have an understanding of both
technology and engineering and the role they play in the creation of new wealth
and high quality employment, and in preserving public health and safety.

Efforts in this area may well enhance the willingness of the public and its
governments to provide adequate resource support for universities.

Implementation

Writing and tabling a report may be a satisfying experience for its authors but the
exercise is of little value unless the recommendations of the report are implemented.
In the case of this report, the challenge to the Canadian Academy of Engineering
is a particularly daunting one in that its resources in facilities and staff are minimal.
The only resource that it can bring to bear is the experience, wisdom and influence of
the Fellows of the Academy. Their emphasis must therefore be on encouraging
effective action by those who have the opportunity and responsibility to act.

A staged process is envisaged for decision and implementation of this recommended
evolution in engineering education. This process will involve interaction with and
among a number of agencies.

As noted in the introduction, a penultimate draft of this report was discussed by

the Fellows of the Academy at their 1999 Annual Meeting. Those present unani-
mously endorsed the principles and directions of the report while recognizing
that many matters of detail would have to be addressed in the process of
implementation.

The same draft was provided to members of the National Council of Deans of
Engineering and Applied Science with a request for further input from individual
deans. Submissions received have been incorporated into this report.

It is recognized that several areas of interest and concern, particularly those
relating to research and university-industry linkages, have not been addressed in
the report. It is proposed that the Deans be asked to consider joining with the
Academy in a task force to explore these areas.

Given the support of the Academy Fellows and the concurrence of Deans and
former Deans, the next proposed step is to arrange approaches to a number of
eminent leaders in Canadian industry and business to solicit their endorsement of
the recommended evolution in engineering education. Prominent Fellows of the
Academy and Deans of local engineering faculties should be involved in these
approaches.

A consensus among engineering deans, industry leaders and the Academy
will provide a powerful base for approaches to governments, universities and
professional engineering bodies. Initially, the objective of these approaches
should be to convince these agencies that the proposed evolution is needed for
the future health of the engineering profession in Canada and for the health of
Canadian economic and social development. Recognizing the provincial respon-
sibility for education and the diversity of local regional and institutional needs,
many of these approaches should be made jointly by representatives of the
Academy, local engineering deans and appropriate industry leaders. If concurrence in
the principles and directions of the envisaged evolution in engineering education
can be achieved at these meetings, detailed planning for implementation and
resource-needs assessment can be undertaken.

While much of the detailed planning must be done in each individual institution,
there are undoubtedly many areas where a broad sharing of experience and
views can be beneficial. A number of Canadian engineering faculties have made
significant progress on various aspects of this evolution. Their leadership can
facilitate developments throughout the country. It is proposed that small working
groups be formed to report on topics such as best practices in project and design
based learning, the development of learning skills, combined bachelors-professional
masters programs, professorial recruitment criteria and reward structures, out-
comes measurement and accreditation implications. Deans might be asked to
nominate interested champions of the proposed changes from among their

professoriate as members of these working groups. Fellows of the Academy
would assist as appropriate.

Implementation of this recommended evolution will require the support and
encouragement of the engineering profession as represented by the Canadian
Council of Professional Engineers and in particular its Canadian Engineering
Accreditation Board. Through its accreditation criteria the profession has
promoted an emphasis on design and a broadening of the engineering education
process. Accordingly, it is hoped that the recommendations of this report will be
seen by the profession as contributing to a natural evolution of its accreditation
process. The report raises a number of issues which will need to be addressed:

With the recommended broadening of the undergraduate curriculum,
can the four-year or equivalent program still be considered as sufficient
to meet the formal academic requirements for entry to the profession?

With integration of the technical and non-technical components of the
curriculum in lectures, laboratories, designs and projects, what are the
processes by which an accreditation team can identify the adequacy of
the results of the program?

How can the accreditation process best encourage the academic
development of new emerging engineering disciplines?

It is proposed that representatives of the Academy meet with the Board, its
parent Council and possibly with provincial councils for in-depth discussions
of these issues.

The Engineering Institute of Canada through its several constituent societies
should be asked to publicize the recommendations of this report among its
members and to solicit endorsement for its principles.

A further stage of implementation should involve the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council whose funding policies and practices have
considerable impact on professorial priorities. This Council is providing significant
support for the proposed evolution through its recently introduced program of
design professorships.

The recommendations for evolution contained in this report are believed to be
consistent with the general principles presented by engineering students in their
1997 report

. It is proposed that the Academy maintain its continuing liaison with

the Canadian Federation of Engineering Students during the implementation
process.

References

1 Engineering Education in Canadian Universities, Canadian Academy of

Engineering, Ottawa, August 1993

2 The Future of Engineering Education in Canada, Canadian Council of

Professional Engineers and the National Council of Deans of Engineering
and Applied Science, Ottawa, 1992

3 Lifelong Learning for Professional Engineers, Canadian Academy of

Engineering, Ottawa, October 1997

4 Wealth Through Technological Entrepreneurship, Canadian Academy of

Engineering, Ottawa, March 1998

5 Feedback on Engineering Related Issues at the Canadian Congress of

Engineering Students, Canadian Federation of Engineering Students,
May, 1997

Task force composition

Arthur Heidebrecht,

Professor Emeritus (former Dean of Engineering and
Provost/Vice-President, Academic) — McMaster
University (Chair/Convenor)

Gordon Slemon,

Professor Emeritus (former Dean of Engineering) —
University of Toronto (Editor)

Douglas Barber,

President & CEO — Gennum Corporation

André Bazergui,

Special Consultant to the CEO, Innovitech Inc.
(Professor Emeritus and former Directeur Général —
École Polytechnique de Montréal)

Michael Charles,

Dean of Engineering, University of Toronto

Edmund Kuffel,

Professor Emeritus (former Dean of Engineering) —
University of Manitoba

David Lynch,

Dean of Engineering — University of Alberta

Mohan Mathur,

Dean of Engineering — University of Western Ontario

Ronald McCullough,

President — KlasTech Ltd

John McDougall,

Managing Director & CEO — Alberta Research Council

Edward Rhodes,

President — Technical University of Nova Scotia

Frank Wilson,

Professor Emeritus (former Dean of Engineering and
Vice-President for Research & International
Cooperation) — University of New Brunswick