University Times

Larry J. Shuman

The engineering classroom of the future is student-centered, technology-enabled and problem- or project-based, with subject matter that is integrated with other disciplines, said industrial engineering faculty member Larry J. Shuman.

Shuman, the Swanson School of Engineering’s senior associate dean for academic affairs, offered his observations on engineering education’s past and future in a Jan. 23 provost’s inaugural lecture celebrating his appointment as Distinguished Service Professor of Industrial Engineering.

Throughout the history of engineering education, sentiments about the kind of schooling engineers need have flip-flopped between “too much” and “not enough,” said Shuman.

From the 1890s onward, “Almost every 10 years you could count on a major study on engineering education either recommending ‘too much’ or ‘not enough,’” he quipped. “There’s not enough science, there’s too much science. Too much practical experience, not enough practical experience; or calls for ‘more design’ or ‘improving teaching, learning and understanding.’”

In the 1840s, Pitt’s earliest engineering students had to complete a BA degree before they could take technical and science courses, Shuman said. Strong conservative educational influences prevailed at what was then the Western University of Pennsylvania, he said. “They wanted technical training but they wanted a University degree first,” he said, adding that the practice was not unusual at the time. “The feeling was that you first had to pass this classical examination and get your BA, then you could have technical subjects.”

Those classical requirements were dropped soon after the School of Engineering was chartered in 1856. Four-year degrees in civil and mechanical engineering were created in 1868 and 1870; in 1869 a mining degree was added, Shuman said, noting that Lemuel Strasser became the University’s first true engineering graduate, completing a degree in civil engineering in 1874.

The growth of railroads and the telegraph increased demand for engineers, Shuman said. By 1880, the nation had 85 engineering schools; by 1890 there were 110.

What to teach became the question. “Do you teach the classics with some science thrown in? Do you focus on technical training? … Do you teach applied science?”

At the time, shop training ruled, but there were subtle changes, Shuman said, noting that in 1885 Cornell introduced more science in its programs, forming a basis for the evolution of the modern engineering school.

Co-op programs arrived in the early 20th century, influenced by industry leaders who felt that engineering graduates were well versed in theory, but lacking in hands-on experience.

Following World War I, more rigorous science was in vogue. And, after World War II, the 1955 Grinter report on engineering education called for stronger graduate programs and the integration of the humanities and social sciences, “transforming engineering education into its present format,” Shuman said.

Over the past three decades, sentiments have continued to shift: In the 1980s educators perceived a lack of hands-on skills, Shuman said. By the ’90s, trends moved back toward design, with engineering educators aiming to produce graduates with integrative capability, analysis capability, innovation and synthesis and contextual understanding, he said.

Recent studies on engineering education have called for flexibility. “There’s been a whole series of studies: Basically they all say flexible engineers are better able to straddle uncertainty, engineers as problem-definers as well as problem-solvers, prepared for creativity, management, entrepreneurship … and stronger application skills,” he said.

Shuman cited the 2008 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching study, “Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field,” in which Stanford’s Sheri Sheppard emphasized “integrating technical knowledge and skills of the practice through consistent focus on developing identity and commitment of the professional engineer.”

He also noted former MIT President Chuck Vest’s contention that “making universities and engineering schools exciting, creative, adventurous, rigorous, demanding and empowering environments is more important than specifying curricular detail,” and MIT engineering science faculty member Rosalyn Williams’s calls for engineering education to build collaborative links with other disciplines, providing students with increasingly flexible pathways.

“In the 21st century, impact of globalization forces a rethinking of where we are,” Shuman said.

“How do we deliver a higher quality education at less cost? How do we produce creative, innovative graduates who think out of the box? How do we utilize new technology? How do we produce more engineering graduates? How do we navigate (New York Times columnist Thomas) Friedman’s ‘flat world’ and produce people that can compete with those who are earning one-third to one-fifth less?”

The role of MOOCs (massive open online courses) must be determined, Shuman said, noting that a pilot by online learning initiative edX at San Jose State University found failure rates in an introductory circuits course dropped from 41 percent to 9 percent when MOOCs were used as part of a flipped classroom model (in which concepts are introduced outside the classroom and class time is spent on more interactive, hands-on learning). The downside: MOOCs can be expensive, with some experts estimating it can cost $200,000-$250,000 to produce a good MOOC, Shuman said.

What is the classroom of the future? It’s technology-enabled, flipped, internationally focused and perhaps supported by MOOCs, Shuman said.

At Pitt, engineering students already are taking advantage of integrated classwork.

Among the examples: A certificate program developed with Munich University of Applied Sciences in which Pitt students spend a semester there taking, in English, courses in automotive engineering or aeronautical engineering.

“We’ve got two students who are over there now and they’ll be able to earn a certificate that will go along with their ME (mechanical engineering) degree,” Shuman said.

The University also is part of the National Science Foundation-funded National Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation, or Epicenter, based at Stanford.

“We are one of 14 schools now that are part of the project ‘to unleash the entrepreneurial potential of undergraduate engineering students across the United States, to create bold innovators with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to contribute to economic and societal prosperity,’” Shuman said.

“If this works, in two years we’re going to have entrepreneurship and innovation infused through the school.”

And there’s more on Shuman’s wish list. Citing initiatives such as Penn State’s humanitarian engineering and social entrepreneurship program; Santa Clara’s frugal innovation; Colorado School of Mines’ humanitarian engineering, and Arizona State’s global resolve, Shuman said, “We have all these things, it’s just a matter of putting it into place and creating a social entrepreneurship activity.”

He’s also impressed by Stanford’s multidisciplinary design center: “We need to figure out how to do this on our terms here.”

—Kimberly K. Barlow