Industrial/Manufacturing Engineering Degrees Awarded by School (Top 50), 2006
1.	Georgia Institute of Technology	266
2.	University of Michigan	186
3.	Ohio State University	158
4.	Purdue University	149
5.	Pennsylvania State University	138
6.	Cornell University	101
7.	Virginia Tech	99
8.	University of Florida	84
9.	Columbia University	79
10.	Iowa State University	65
11.	Northwestern University	64
12.	California Poly. State U., SLO	63
12.	Texas A&M University	63
14.	Univ. of Puerto Rico Mayaguez	62
15.	Stanford University	58
16.	North Carolina State University	57
17.	Oregon State University	55
18.	University of Wisconsin Madison	53
19.	Arizona State University	46
19.	University of Pittsburgh	46
21.	Clemson University	45
22.	University of California, Berkeley	44
23.	San Jose State University	41
24.	California State Poly. Univ., Pomona	40
25.	University of Arkansas	39
25.	Florida International University	39
27.	FAMU-FSU College of Eng.	38
27.	West Virginia University	38
29.	Kettering University	36
29.	Lehigh University	36
29.	South Dakota Sc. of Mines & Tech.	36
32.	Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico	35
32.	University of Texas, El Paso	35
34.	University of Houston	34
34.	University of Southern California	34
36.	University of Arizona	33
37.	University of Washington	32
38.	George Mason University	30
38.	Lamar University	30
40.	Kansas State University	29
40.	SUNY, Buffalo	29
40.	North Carolina A & T State Univ.	29
43.	Auburn University	28
43.	University of Iowa	28
43.	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute	28
43.	Rochester Institute of Technology	28
43.	Rutgers University	28
48.	North Dakota State University	27
49.	University of Nebraska Lincoln	26
50.	University of Miami	25
*111 total schools reported

TOPˆ

SCIENCE FUNDING: STILL STUCK IN THE INACTION ZONE

A sad divide over science funding exists between rhetoric and action. A mere eight months ago President Bush signed the America COMPETES Act, a landmark bipartisan commitment to science education and research that authorized, among other things, a doubling of basic research funding over the next decade. Yet, to date, Congress and the president have been unable to separate science from their larger areas of disagreement, resulting in flat funding for science (when taking into account congressional earmarks, some science programs have actually experienced cuts as a result of the FY08 appropriations cycle). With neither side willing to sacrifice, both sides have held the science community hostage to their own intransigence.

Both sides avow a desire to provide massive increases in science funding but Democrats have sought to use the President's stated commitment to fund science as leverage to negotiate for their other budget priorities first. Meanwhile Republican intransigence has taken the form of Presidential vetoes and parliamentary obstructionism. The White House says there is diminishing likelihood that science funding will finds its way into the upcoming war supplemental budget, though groups of senators, representatives and scientists have lobbied for just such an inclusion.

In short, prospects remain gloomy. A raucous campaign season and a soon-departing commander-in-chief lead many to believe that the appropriations process this year will arrive stillborn. With a continuing resolution thought to be the most likely result, doomsday looms as science funding would remain at FY08 levels (which are essentially FY07 levels) absent the distant prospect of supplemental funding.

 

SCIENCE COMMUNITY LOBBYING EFFORT CONTINUES

This week saw an aggressive effort from the science community to urge leaders to support supplemental funding for science. A massive call-in effort and letter-writing campaign, it is hoped, will raise the profile of science funding as an issue in need of urgent attention by the president and congressional leaders.

TOPˆ

A World-Class Act

By Thomas K. Grose

ENGINEERING STUDENTS ARE TRAVELING FAR AND WIDE TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF SOME OF THE WORLD'S POOREST COMMUNITIES.

A FEW YEARS AGO, Dale Meck, then a senior civil engineering student at Cornell University, found himself deep in the interior of Honduras at the end of the rainy season, slogging through mud that was, at times, up to his knees. Meck, 22, was there with six other students and two engineering faculty members to assist a local group working to bring water to remote villages. The Cornell contingent designed software that can be used on the fly in hardscrabble areas to estimate the cost and feasibility of planned water-supply systems: a money-saving application for communities where money is even scarcer than clean water.

That real-world project is one of many ongoing efforts organized by Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW), formerly known as Engineers Without Frontiers. The Honduras project is also one of four that forme the nucleus of a Cornell engineering course, entitled Engineers for a Sustainable World, taught by assistant professor Rachel A. Davidson, who also journeyed to Honduras.

ESW is a fast-growing organization that pools the resources of student, academic, and professional engineers to bring first-world technological solutions to third-world problems. Those problems are in areas such as potable and wastewater systems, infrastructure, information technology, housing, energy, and agriculture.

Ours is a world in which 5 billion people survive on less than $3 a week, and 1.2 billion don't have access to clean drinking water. But, says Krishna S. Athreya, head of the ESW's board of directors, "a lot of those conditions can be alleviated with appropriate access to technology." Bringing useful technology to the developing world will not be easy. But, she asks, who's better suited to the task than engineers. "They're quintessential problem-solvers."

Engineers Without Frontiers originated in Canada in 1999. The following year a branch opened in the United Kingdom. Athreya (who until recently was director of Minority and Women's Programs in Engineering at Cornell) and graduate engineering student Regina R.L. Clewlow—now executive director–organized a chapter at the Ithaca campus in 2001 and began cobbling together the infrastructure for a national group. New chapters at campuses ranging from Penn State to Stanford emerged soon after. The group now has more than 1,000 members in chapters at 19 American schools, including the universities of California-Berkeley, Michigan, and Iowa. Clewlow estimates that by next spring, membership will total between 1,500 and 2,000. So far, membership tilts toward the civil, environmental, and mechanical fields, Clewlow says. But engineers from all disciplines are welcome and needed.

While the U.S. group maintains links to its counterparts in Canada and the United Kingdom—they often share resources—it's taken a more independent route. The name change, for instance. The Americans decided Engineers Without Frontiers invited comparisons to groups such as Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) and Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief—organizations that parachute into emergency situations to provide aid. That's not what this group does. The name Engineers for a Sustainable World, the membership felt, better described its more "long-term" focus on seeking "lasting solutions for reducing poverty."

Engineering has always been about making life better, Athreya explains. "The core value of engineering is using technology in the service of humanity." But, she adds, "When we talk about humanity, we mean all humanity, not just the privileged people who already have access to technology." She speaks of the pyramid of humanity, where at the base live the 4 to 5 billion people who have little wealth; at the top live the relatively few rich. Usually, she says, the business model has been to develop technology for those at the top and let it filter down to the masses. ESW proposes developing technologies specifically designed for the world's poor. These basic products and services would necessarily be inexpensive, but the "sheer numbers" of users would ensure massive markets that could generate profits, "turning the marketing model on its head."

Narrowing the Gap

The organization is eager to bring sustainable development issues into the classroom. One of its goals is to "educate a generation of engineers to have greater understanding of global issues and the ways technology can be employed for human progress." Many students are receptive, Athreya explains. "It's a way to harness the idealism we have in youth." The numbers bear her out: 84 percent of ESW members are students and 16 percent are professionals, including many academics. Moreover, she adds, helping the impoverished to have a better life can, for students, "be a life-changing experience."

That was certainly the case for Meck. He says the trip to Honduras was an eye-opener. Even in small villages, he says, the gulf between the privileged few and the many others with nothing was huge. The Cornell group worked with a local organization, Agua Para el Pueblo, that's building the water systems. Says Meck: "The coolest part is: It's Hondurans helping Hondurans."

Studies show that qualified young women often shun engineering for other fields, such as medicine, because many of them want to do something to help others, and they don't see how they can accomplish that as engineers. That's a misconception that needs to be overcome, Athreya says. "Engineering is all about helping people, and the scale can be quite grand." She thinks efforts to give budding engineers the opportunity to tackle global poverty issues is one way to get that message across to not only young women but to minorities, as well. ESW membership figures indicate it is popular with women and minorities. Ideas for projects come from a variety of sources. Some percolate up from chapters and individual members, others come from activist organizations looking for engineering skills. ESW has a projects team that vets all suggestions. Past projects include:

• Training IT trainers in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the intricacies of introductory Java programming.
• An irrigation cost study for sub-Saharan Africa.
• An effort in Nigeria to develop products and markets for energy converted from biomass waste.

Some engineering courses, like Davidson's at Cornell, are specifically designed to take advantage of ESW projects. In addition to the Honduran rural water project, Davidson's class is also working on several other ESW projects, including an initiative to use vegetable oil as an alternative vehicle fuel, and the designing of a solar-powered oven. "They're all technologies for the developing world," Davidson says. The elective class has been popular not only with engineering students but with students from other departments. Also, women usually make up half the class roster.

Instead of creating new courses, some schools have incorporated ESW projects into existing courses. One civil and environmental course at Stanford is working on a "green" building design project. Other schools have developed seminars connected to projects.

Not all projects require travel to far-flung regions, and when travel is involved, not all participants need go. When a project is part of a class, however, students earn credits. For students and professionals alike, the project experiences can enhance one's professional experience. They also look great on a résumé. One undergraduate student wrote a paper based on her experience working on a water project in India that was ultimately published.

In building the initial infrastructure of Engineers for a Sustainable World, Athreya and Clewlow focused on linking universities; an academic network seemed a logical way to proceed. The group is conducting a survey of professional engineers, members and nonmembers, as a first step toward bringing more professionals into the fold. Most current professional members are young. Many are former student members. Clewlow says EWS also plans to seek more corporate financial help. Funds come from many sources, such as individuals, funding agencies, activist groups (like the International Water Management Institute), student fundraising, and universities.

Meck, meanwhile, made one more project-related trip to Honduras this past summer. Of the experience, he says, "The main thing was [that] I felt like I was doing something special." He begins work toward his master's degree in hydraulic fluid mechanics at Stanford this month. He loves research and might remain in academia, but now he's keen to combine his lab work with his new interest in sustainable development. "I'd like to target research that's beneficial to more areas than the United States," he says.

And it seems likely that the fruits of his laboratory labor will be in great demand.

TOPˆ

It´s About More Than Numbers

By Michael Prince, James Trevelyan and Richard M. Felder

Students can engage in active problem-solving even before they master theories and equations.

Higher education is filled with strongly held beliefs that do not always stand up to rigorous scholarly analysis; for example, “You can´t be an effective teacher unless you´re actively engaged in research” or “Students learn more by working individually than by cooperating in teams.” Another well-entrenched tenet of traditional instruction is the notion that students must first master the underlying principles and theories of a discipline before being asked to solve substantive problems in that discipline.

An analysis of the literature suggests that there are sometimes good reasons to “teach backwards” by introducing students to complex and realistic problems before exposing them to the relevant theory and equations. A broad range of inductive teaching methods, such as inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching and just-in-time teaching, do just that. What inductive methods have in common is that students are presented with a challenge and then learn what they need to know to address that challenge. The methods differ in the nature and scope of the challenge and in the amount of guidance students receive from their instructor as they attempt to complete their tasks.

Inductive approaches have many other features in common, all of which are well grounded in educational theory and widely supported by empirical studies. Inductive methods are all student-centered, meaning that they impose more responsibility on students for their own learning than the traditional lecture-based deductive approach does. They can all be characterized as constructivist methods, building on the widely accepted principle that students construct their own versions of reality rather than simply absorbing versions presented by their teachers. The methods almost always involve students discussing questions and solving problems in class (active learning), with much of the work in and out of class being done by students in groups (collaborative or cooperative learning).

Of course, the most relevant question from the standpoint of classroom instructors is, “Do these methods work?” In a word, yes. While the quality of research data supporting the different inductive methods is variable, the collective evidence favoring inductive over traditional, deductive pedagogy is conclusive. Inductive methods promote students´ adoption of a deep (meaning-oriented) approach to learning, as opposed to a surface (memorization-intensive) approach. They promote intellectual development, challenging the dualistic type of thinking that characterizes many entering college students, which holds that all knowledge is certain, professors have it and the task of students is to absorb and repeat it. And they help students acquire the critical thinking and self-directed learning skills that characterize expert scientists and engineers.

This is not to say, however, that simply adopting an inductive method will automatically lead to better learning and more satisfied students. As with any form of instruction, inductive teaching can be done well or poorly, and the outcomes that result from it are only as good as the skill and care with which it is implemented. Many students are resistant to any type of instruction that makes them more responsible for their own learning. Instructors who set out to implement an inductive method should therefore first familiarize themselves with best practices in using the method, such as providing adequate scaffolding—extensive support and guidance when students are first introduced to the method and gradual withdrawal of support as students gain more experience and confidence in its use. They should also anticipate some student resistance to the method and be aware of effective strategies for defusing it. If these precautions are taken, both the students and the instructor should soon start seeing the positive outcomes promised by the research.

Michael Prince is a professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Bucknell University, where he has been since receiving his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1989. Professor James Trevelyan, discipline chair for mechatronics at the University of Western Australia, teaches sustainability and professional engineering skills. Adapted from July 2007 JEE articleTechnical Coordination in Engineering Practice.

Richard M. Felder is Hoechst Celanese Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering at North Carolina State University. Michael Prince is a professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Bucknell University. This article is adapted from “Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases” in JEE (April 2006, vol. 95, no. 2), and “The Many Faces of Inductive Teaching and Learning” in the Journal of College Science Teaching.

TOPˆ