9512.net
甜梦文库
当前位置:首页 >> >>

Abstract Learning Engineering Design, Languages, and Experiences


Last reviewed/edited by CLD on March 18, 2003.

Learning Engineering: Design, Languages, and Experiences
Clive L. Dym Fletcher Jones Professor of Engineering Design Department of Engineering Harvey Mudd College Claremont CA 91711–5990 clive_dym@hmc.edu

Abstract
This paper briefly reviews some current concerns about engineering education, with special attention being paid to the role of design and to the balance between design and engineering science. In particular, I offer some constructs and themes enabling paths to useful and invigorating changes in how engineering is learned. The constructs are embodied in a view of the curriculum as a sum of skills to be mastered and experiences in which to be immersed. The themes are captured in three attitudinal paradigm shifts in how we view engineering education. Thus, I argue that we should: change the balance between design and analysis; recognize more explicitly that many languages are used in engineering; and consider that an undergraduate degree in engineering might well be increasingly uncoupled from its traditional role as the entry-level certification for the profession.

A Preliminary Personal Note
There is no shortage of ideas about (and papers on) what is wrong with engineering education and what sorts of curriculum reform are needed. Interestingly, while engineering curricula look very much the same across the nation and across a broad spectrum of institutions, engineering schools almost universally acknowledge many of the same concerns, including identifying the right mix of skills and experiences to which students should be exposed, improving the retention of skills by students, and retaining a higher fraction of students to graduation. Having said this, and having taught in institutions large and small, public and private, on both coasts and in the heartland, I would like to offer a personal, somewhat idiosyncratic view of “ailments” that we can identify and could well remedy. I confess that I began my teaching career as an “analytical type” — an engineering scientist — who has developed a broader, perhaps more comprehensive view, especially in the last decade or so. And finally I note that I have actually earned my living as an engineer. Twice I have left the groves of academe to work in environments in which every hour was charged to an account number, clients paid real money for services rendered, time and budget deadlines were hard, and the deliverables were technical reports, assessments, and designs — all without the comforts of multi-year contracts or tenure.

Engineering Curricula Observed (I)
I begin with a set of observations about the undergraduate engineering curriculum, noting again that engineering programs look far more alike than not, even when comparing a typical undergraduate program in civil or electrical engineering at a large state university to the broad, non-specialized program at my home institution (Harvey Mudd College (HMC)). In An abbreviated version of this paper appeared in the Journal of Engineering Education, 88 (2), 145–148, 199.

2

Design, Languages, and Experiences in Engineering Education

fact, most discussions of and proposals for curriculum reform refer to a highly — perhaps overly — constrained environment, as a result of which changes in engineering education, and their consequences for engineering learning, are hard to envision and even harder to implement. However, it's clear that we do need to continue to look ahead 2003. First of all, we have designed our curricula to be very highly structured, locked in to long, serial course sequences. While we correctly view this as reflecting a much-needed buildingblock approach to learning everything an engineer should know, it also supports a studentheld view of the curriculum as a set of often disjoint and unconnected barriers, that is, more like a set of track hurdles than a stairway toward clearly recognizable goals. Second, we have institutionalized this curricular organization within an engineering science model of engineering, and we deliver it within academic cultures that clearly conform to the scientific research enterprise that has characterized university and college education in this country since just after the Second World War. (This could be characterized as the post-Vannevar Bush Report, post-Sputnik era. Further, we have set up these curricula so that their most important component — that part of the curriculum that ought to focus on the inculcation or initiation of the engineer — is delivered by other departments on campus, mostly mathematics, physics, and chemistry. These early courses are intended to be the roots of the tree of engineering knowledge, and they also form the starting points for many of the serial sequences mentioned earlier. Not surprisingly, the departments that teach these courses have agendas quite different from those of the engineering departments and schools that they purportedly intend to serve. Third, we seem to convey to all too many students the idea that mathematics is the language of engineering. This point is strongly related to the second point because the attitude begins to take shape as engineering students see and meet mathematics professors earlier and more often than they do encounter engineering faculty during their first two years in school. However, the attitude also strongly derives from our pervasive use of mathematics as the means or language for formulating and solving engineering problems. And, of course, this is also due in part to the dominance of the “engineering science” or analysis courses in the engineering curriculum, including mechanics, field theory, transport phenomena, and so on. Fourth, and related to points two and three, have by all accounts done a much better job over the last fifty years teaching analysis than we have done teaching design. The meaning and role of design in engineering education has long been a subject of debate and argument, and for a long time now, an analysis-versus-design formulation has been one of the “hot buttons” or sharp divides in discussions of engineering education. However, it is worth noting that increasing weight is being given to design methodology and design practice within engineering curricula. I argue here that beyond being the “capstone” of engineering education, design should be the very cornerstone of engineering learning1 — or, in an anthropomorphic metaphor, design activities and courses should be the backbone of the engineering curriculum. Now, this argument should not be taken as a call for a wholesale replacement of analysis courses with design courses. The cornerstone notion is put forward as a change in attitude toward a far more explicit and visible role for design as being “what engineering is all about.” Analysis will unquestionably retain its centrality for formulating and modeling engineering problems, as well as for evaluating design results. Perhaps the point is that students need to learn engineering science so that they can design, that is, we teach

Clive L. Dym

3

engineering science in order to support our students’ ability to design. The fifth and last observation is that we conduct the engineering education enterprise in an environment in which each student’s performance is largely assessed in individual terms, often in styles that encourage each student to see herself as being in competition with her peers. This is a style that has traditionally started before college, in K–12 education, and it is a style that industry would increasingly like us to change — although they almost always ask prospective employees for grades and personal transcripts before they extend invitations to interviews! It is a style that has very ancient roots in the teacher-as-lecturer tradition in which the teacher was the authority and the source of knowledge. Nowadays, of course, we hear more about the teacher as coach or facilitator, with students working with more individual initiative, in more team-oriented environments, and with greater technological resources at hand. (And, we observe with interest that K–12 teachers are beginning to use engineering as a metaphor and vehicle for stimulating student interest in science!) This newer view is quite consistent with the fact that few engineers work as single contributors any more, if indeed many of us ever did. It is clear that that the functional and geographic dispersion of engineering knowledge and engineering projects and tasks makes the ability to function in a team an essential part of being a successful engineer. Perhaps those of us in the academy need to think about this in a more direct way, inasmuch as tenure and financial rewards hinge almost exclusively on our individual contributions to our disciplines and communities — often to the expense of our own institutions.

Where Might We Be Going?
The foregoing five observations sound harsh. However, it is not my intention to indict, and certainly not to convict. It can — and must — be safely said that much that is good about modern life stems from progress made by engineers, and that technology does drive much of our (and the world’s) economy. Thus, it is certainly less the case that “everything is terrible” than, “Can we do things even better?” What does it mean to “do things even better”? Can we create educational environments in which students learn more about engineering, and with greater interest and enthusiasm? Can we graduate a higher percentage of entering students? Can our graduates be more sensitive to a wider range of needs than simply “technical” issues? Can they enjoy a broader range of intellectual activity, both while engineering students and as lifelong members of the profession? Can their education stand them in better stead for careers in non-technological enterprises? (Surely many more of our graduates are doing things other than engineering, including going to law and medical schools, working in financial service firms, and doing many other things besides. Doesn’t this suggest that engineering might be viewed as a good “liberal arts education” in an increasingly technological world?) But most important, can we design programs in which students can more effectively learn engineering skills appropriate to the next century? In what follows, I present first a different way of looking at engineering curricula, and then I detail three attitudinal paradigm shifts as filters through which we can explore different perceptions of engineering curricula and how these perceptions can help students to better learn engineering skills and practices. The first filter is the role of design in the engineering curriculum, and the suggested attitude shift is toward a more explicit recognition of design as a distinguishing feature of engineering practice and a motivating factor in the learning of engineering. The second suggestion is for a more explicit and widespread recognition of

4

Design, Languages, and Experiences in Engineering Education

languages other than mathematics being essential for engineering practice and thus for engineering curricula. The third proposal is a call for greater breadth in undergraduate engineering curricula.

Engineering Curricula Observed (II): A Different Construct
Curriculum discussions are all too often cast in terms of topics and texts that students “should know.” As a result, we compile long lists of subjects and courses that students have to take, and the courses are generally given in the classic lecture style. This is leavened to some extent by recognizing that some of these courses are laboratory courses, which implies that students can learn some of what they need to know at the bench, instead of sitting through lectures or problem sessions. There are several issues here.2 For example, could we be specifying too much content,3 especially in the face of the increasing recognition that the half-life of such topical learning gets shorter and shorter? And, do students learn effectively in a paradigm that is inherently passive in its structure?3 We will return to these issues later, but for now I suggest that we view engineering curricula as a combination of a set of skills that students are expected to acquire and a set of experiences they will undergo (or through which they will pass) while they are still students. Thus, with the equation as metaphor,

An Engineering Program = ? (Skills + Experiences )
The curricular focus now shifts toward specifying first a set of skills that a student can perform — rather than a list of topics that a student must “know” — and, second, identifying a set of activities that a student will do or be involved with during their tenure at a given school. The list of skills to be mastered is clearly linked to the list of subjects that need to be known, the knowledge base that must be acquired. However, the lists of subjects that need to be known seem often to be time-invariant, and too hallowed by tradition and by faculty recollections of what they hard to learn while in school. Lists of skills to be mastered facilitate linkage to objectives that must be served and needs that must be met, as well as to changing knowledge bases. They also make it possible to (1) acknowledge the effects of newer tools and approaches, (2) import knowledge of how tasks are performed in practice, and (3) recognize the connections to other aspects of a problem-solving task that may involve different disciplines or sub-disciplines. Where do the lists of skills and experiences come from? We answer by stating what we want an engineering graduate to be able to do, rather than specifying what she must know. In fact, a partially developed list of skills to be mastered might be viewed as the beginnings of an objectives tree,4–6 that could be expanded to provide greater detail in terms of subobjectives, whose further refinement will lead inevitably to some formulation of the means needed to achieve these objectives or ends. If we are educating structural engineers, for example, instead of listing required courses (e.g., Statics, Strength of Materials, Introduction to Structural Analysis, Steel Design, Concrete Design, Finite Element Analysis), we might start by wanting students to be able to design a simple steel industrial building. This means they can identify (1) the loads and environmental forces the building must carry; (2) relevant building codes and any other requirements that must be met; (3) basic structural choices that need to be made with regard to framing and layout; (4) the structural elements and their models; and the (5) begin to analyze the structure to determine preliminary member shapes and sizes. This last list is akin to setting out a functional specification in a design process.4–6

Clive L. Dym

5

In order to be able to design a simple steel structure, a student must know how to read and interpret codes, interact with an architect and with a foundations engineer, and analyze beam and column elements with a standard finite element package. This is a different set of specifications than the standard course list for structural engineers. For example, it exposes the fact that applying qualitative knowledge about structural behavior (e.g., when an “Ibeam” behaves as a beam and when it behaves as a column) is a better skill for structural design than for solving beam equations. Similarly, understanding how to correctly interpret results obtained with a standard numerical package may be a more valuable design skill than knowing how to write a meshing program. This breakdown of objectives might also indicate the need for participating in and experiencing team-done projects, and for learning to do design in a broader context than designing typical steel connections. Note how naturally the experience requirement emerges from the answer to the question about what we want graduates to be able to do, that is, to responding to a functional specification of what we require of an engineering graduate. This point may be especially important for (expensive) private schools because they might otherwise fall victim to the popular notion that education, including engineering education, can be delivered over the net and cheaply in a web-based, mass-produced environment. But faculty at all kinds of institutions should be thinking about the activities their students will experience because such experiences provide the ultimate justification for the existence of traditional residential forms of higher education. If faculty cannot identify legitimate reasons for students to be on campus for four years, and why they must be present in person instead of being logged in to a server, then their missions and very institutional existence will be called into question.

Design and the Analysis versus Design Divide
Design has been identified as the distinguishing mark of the engineering profession.7 However, both faculty and practitioners continue to be concerned that design is neither properly taught nor adequately presented in engineering curricula (e.g., Ref. 8 and its citations 3–10). And while ABET9 and the professional societies1 0 have begun to push for more design in the curriculum, “The age of engineering science is not yet over.”1 1 There is still resistance to incorporating more design in the curriculum. Why is this so? Consider first the engineering science orientation of the entire engineering educational endeavor. Most engineering faculty have spent their entire professional careers doing (and teaching) engineering science at colleges and universities. While many faculty consult, they generally do not design products or devics to meet a client’s needs under real-world constraints. Thus, most faculty are not comfortable about teaching design because they haven’t much direct, personal experience in doing design.1 1 Further, design was traditionally thought to be a creative activity that was learned experientially. Design faculty could not articulate to the engineering science faculty — who were by far in the majority — what they were teaching in design courses. Consequently, engineering scientists felt that there was no “real” content in design education, and many felt that no meaningful discipline of design could emerge until it was cast into rigorous mathematical terms. This situation has begin to change over the last decade or so because design has come to be viewed as a cognitive activity that can be modeled, so that design research and design itself are now taken much more seriously as legitimate areas of intellectual inquiry.6 Simply put, design should be both cornerstone and capstone of the engineering

6

Design, Languages, and Experiences in Engineering Education

curriculum. It should be present throughout the program — the backbone metaphor again — in each and every year. While some argue that freshmen don’t know enough to design, it is increasingly clear that freshman design courses are becoming more established and their popularity is spreading.8, 11–14 One factor that somewhat inhibits the spread of freshman design courses is the lack of a good text. While there are good design textbooks for capstone courses,4, 5, 15–16 there aren’t nearly as many at the freshman level.1 7 Similarly, the role of management issues in engineering education has a similar history, buttressed by the view that there is no room in an engineering curriculum for any more nontechnical courses. But management skills are used, whether taught adequately or not, whenever any design project is done, or for that matter in the performance of most engineering tasks, both within the academy and without. Further, when a project, whether design or research, is undertaken by a team, the relevance of management skills is clear.1 7 Design, particularly as taught in a project-, team-based approach, serves to meet many of the criticisms outlined earlier. When taught in the first and second years, design connects incoming engineering students to their engineering mentors and their engineering ideals from the very beginning. Engineering students also learn some of the related “arts” of being an engineer, including working in teams, making presentations to a variety of audiences, and managing design and engineering projects.1 8 This set of issues is clearly important in today’s business environment1 9 — the environment in which most engineers will work, and many of them in positions that are more than “technical.” The argument that design needs to be much more visible in the curriculum and much more a part of the student experience should not be taken as an indication that analysis should be displaced. Analysis is crucial for formulating and modeling problems, and for evaluating and assessing designs. However, we must recognize that students now use different tools to implement models and to obtain solutions. Further, they can learn deeper domain knowledge beyond that taught in basic engineering science courses while doing design projects. A first course in structural analysis does not teach students how to analyze complex frames or plate structures. Students who understand elementary structural models, however, can design basic frames or cover plates in a design project. Properly motivated and fundamentally grounded students can learn and apply on their own much of what is in the advanced engineering science courses. Motivation is provided by real engineering design projects, sponsored by industry, such as those in HMC’s Engineeric Clinic program.20, 21

Languages (and Computing) in the Engineering Curriculum
For the last half of this century, mathematics has been the language of engineering. This is due in part to the central role of mathematics in physical sciences modeling, in part due to our engineering science approach to teaching engineering. In addition, mathematical content has long been seen as a guarantor of suitable rigor both for research and for teaching. Most engineering faculty understand that much of what they really know cannot be expressed in mathematics alone. There’s no question that we use graphics and pictures, and we often use heuristics. We also use a lot of words, although often in a very structured way (e.g., in specifications and codes). Designers and modelers of cognitive design processes certainly understand that there are many languages of design.15, 6 But this awareness is not fully articulated in the engineering curriculum. One aspect of this has become strikingly evident. Students no longer seem to have the same mathematical skills, especially when it comes to solving problems, that is, in terms of

Clive L. Dym

7

being able to solve differential equations, to use Laplace transforms and Fourier series, and so on. In part this is attributable to lamentable changes in K–12 education, but it is also due in large part to the ubiquitous presence of the computer in students’ lives, minds and arsenals. Thus, I would argue that we need an attitudinal paradigm shift about languages that has two parts, and in this context we use language to mean representation in the broadest possible terms. The first part of the attitudinal shift has to do with how we teach the engineering sciences. While we must still depend on mathematics as the language for modeling and (initially) formulating problems, both students and practitioners increasingly use computing as a language for solving problems. We must think further about some fundamental pedagogical issues and answer questions such as: What are the math skills of current students (i.e., is it really true that they are not the same as they used to be)? Need they be? Does one acquire a “feel” for a subject through algebraic manipulation? Through many computer cycles? Through intelligent use of symbolic computing? Through some magical balance among these three means? What is the educational role of simulation?2 2 While we used to train students in the arts of “feel” and intuition by having them perform a lot of “routine algebra,” now they readily jump to the computer. How and when do we teach them what to look for in computing results? Will they learn to distinguish computing errors from modeling mistakes? Some of this is already happening inter alia, along the way, but I would suggest that it needs more explicitly addressed in the contexts of the intents and contexts of the engineering science part of the engineering curriculum. The second part of the attitudinal paradigm shift in languages has to do with the “languages of engineering design.” This shift is also related to the argument that design, and representations beyond mathematics and numbers, should play a larger role in the curriculum. We recognize that design knowledge includes knowledge of design procedures, shortcuts, and so on, as well as about designed objects and their attributes. Designers think about design processes when they begin to sketch and draw the objects they are designing. A complete representation of designed objects and their attributes requires a complete representation of design concepts which are harder to describe or represent than are physical objects (e.g., design intentions, plans, behavior, and so on). There are several languages or representations used in design, including:2 3 verbal or textual statements that are used to articulate design projects, describe objects, describe constraints or limitations, communicate between different members of design and manufacturing teams, and document completed designs; graphical representations that are used to provide pictorial descriptions of designed artifacts such as sketches, renderings, and engineering drawings; mathematical or analytical models that are used to express some aspect of an artifact’s function or behavior, where this behavior is in turn often derived from some physical principle(s); and numbers that are used to represent discrete-valued design information (e.g., part dimensions) and parameters in design calculations or within algorithms representing a mathematical model. We should teach students that different languages are employed to represent engineering and design knowledge at different times, and that we often cast the same knowledge into different forms or languages in order to serve different purposes. For example, fundamental structural mechanics knowledge can be expressed analytically, as in formulas for the vibration frequencies of columns, One consequence of design education is that students learn that they need to know more than formulas; numerically, as in discrete minimum values of structural dimensions or in FEA algorithms for calculating stresses and displacements; and in terms of heuristics or rules of thumb, as in the knowledge that the first-

8

Design, Languages, and Experiences in Engineering Education

order response of a tall, slender building to an earthquake can be modeled as the response of a simple cantilever to foundation excitation. Thus, one of the consequences of designfocused education is that students learn that they are applying knowledge in differing forms to serve different ends, which means that they can become fluent translators of engineering languages. This will happen best if we raise students’ consciousness about the varied languages of engineering design.

Breadth (and Specialization) in the Engineering Curriculum
The last shift in attitude that I urge is a plea for greater breadth in our undergraduate curricula, or, phrased differently, a review of the balance between depth and breadth in an engineering program. However, unlike more common discussions along this dimension that focus on a need for more humanities and social sciences courses, I argue that we need greater technical breadth that results in a better understanding of systems and systems of systems.2 4 My view here derives from two decades of teaching in traditional civil engineering programs and twelve years in HMC’s broad, non-specialized program, which I describe first. The HMC undergraduate engineering curriculum has three “stems”:2 5 engineering science, with a focus on introductions to mechanics, thermodynamics, materials, and electrical and computer engineering; systems engineering, a set of three courses that focus on modeling and analyzing lumped-element models of physical systems; and design, including (1) a freshman design course,8 (2) a sophomore course requiring the design and manufacture of real tools, such as a hammer and a screwdriver, and the completion of detailed design projects requiring experimental determination of design parameters, and (3) the Engineering Clinic projects in the junior and senior years.20, 2 1 HMC’s engineering program is unified by the recognition that design is the distinguishing activity of engineering;7 that engineers typically design systems; and that such design requires good models of the physical systems. Design, clearly an integral part of HMC’s curriculum, “peaks” in Clinic in the junior (3 cr.) and senior (6 cr.) years.2 0 Since Clinic projects often require deep domain knowledge, it is reasonable to ask whether students can do in-depth design and development based on a broader-rather-than-deeper program? The answer is that students can and do, as evident in the willingness of companies to pay substantial fees for their HMC Clinic projects. In fact, students do first-rate design (and supporting analysis) because they know (1) the fundamentals of the relevant discipline and (2) how to formulate and solve a technical problem. The Clinic environment motivates them to acquire the needed domain depth. The design experience in the Clinic setting focuses the students’ attention, and they work as they would in industry — on new and unfamiliar problems wherein they learn to acquire and use new knowledge. They learn that design is not done in vacuo. Rather, they learn that designs are meant to meet a client’s needs and to function within a specified system or environment. Thus, a broad education in engineering fundamentals coupled with a consistent exposure to design — from conceptual design and design methods in the first year through detailed, client-oriented design experiences in the last two years — produces the environment and motivation to do good engineering work. In fact, design serves as the integrator of our broad undergraduate program. We have ample anecdotal and informal survey data from alumni that these experiences provide a framework for “lifelong learning” and from companies that our graduates “hit the deck running” when they go to work (or to graduate school). There are several other reasons to favor a broader approach to undergraduate engineering education (and I do recognize that some considerable reduction in specialization

Clive L. Dym

9

is already occurring in many traditional, discipline-based departments). For example, engineering graduates are increasingly pursuing graduate degrees and employment in law, medicine, financial services, and teaching in K–12 systems. In addition, engineering schools face consistent pressure from their university environments (and their own students) to reduce the number of credit hours toward the same number required for the B.A. degree. Perhaps we might regard an undergraduate degree in engineering as a “liberal arts” degree for a technological age, rather than as the entree into the profession that it has been for so long. Perhaps we might focus on process, instead of content. Perhaps specialization in engineering could be left unto the master’s degree, with the undergraduate degree being awarded after a broad, unspecialized education in the art and science of engineering.

Concluding Remarks
We should accept — and even take pride in— the fact that we need not make all engineering curricula look so much alike. The shift in ABET criteria toward more outcomes-oriented assessments is a welcome step in this direction. Hopefully the entire engineering profession — including practitioners, educators, and students — can work toward more universal aspirations with fewer restrictions. The construct and the paradigm shifts I have discussed are intended to help us move toward a better quality of experience for undergraduates in engineering programs. Remember, what students see is more than a bunch of topics and courses. Students will learn to do some things, and they will have many experiences that should be designed to strengthen and reinforce the skills they are acquiring. We should recognize that engineering students can do meaningful design projects in the first year, and they should have real design experiences throughout their years in school. We should teach that engineering knowledge comes and is applied in many forms and languages. We should recognize and articulate that breadth is likely a far greater strength than the narrowness of depth at this level of education. Finally, our curricula should reflect the fact that people in any endeavor operate far more often as members and leaders and coaches and managers of teams. In other words, we should recognize the fact that engineering is a social activity.2 6

Acknowledgments
Two Harvey Mudd colleagues have provided much inspiration for this paper. Jim Rosenberg and I have shared various curriculum committee assignments, and it is from our talks about these that the construct of a curriculum as a sum of skills and experiences emerged. Pat Little has once again exercised his philosopher’s stone in a valiant attempt to help me be clear and lucid, and he remains my close collaborator on Ref. 17. In addition, Northwestern Univeristy’s Ed Colgate and Greg Olson provided very helpful comments during the original drafting of this article while the author was Eshbach Visiting professor of Civil Engineering at Northwestern in 1997–98.

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C. L. Dym, “Why We’re Here: Design and Design Centers in Engineering Education,” in Ref. 3. C. L. Dym (Editor), Computing Futures in Engineering Design, Department of Engineering, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, 1997. W. K. Purves and M. E. Williams, “Computers and Learning,” in Ref. 3. G. Pahl and W. Beitz, Engineering Design, Design Council Books, London, 1984. N. Cross, Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley, Chichester, 1989.

10

Design, Languages, and Experiences in Engineering Education

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

C. L. Dym, Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1994. H. A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981. C. L. Dym, “Teaching Design to Freshmen: Style and Content,” Journal of Engineering Education, 83 (4), 303–310, October 1994. Visit ABET’s web site: http://www.abet.ba.md.us/. ASME, Innovations in Engineering Design Education: Resource Guide, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1993. L. G. Richards and S. Carlson-Skalak, “Faculty Reactions to Teaching Engineering Design to First Year Students,” Journal of Engineering Education, 86 (3), 233–240, July 1997. J. W. Dally and G. M. Zhang, “A Freshman Design Course,” Journal of Engineering Education, 82 (1), 83–91, April 1993. S. D. Sheppard, R. Jenison, et al., “Examples of Freshman Design Education,” International Journal of Engineering Education, in press. J. Anderson, J. E. Colgate, P. Hirsch, D. Kelso, G. B. Olson, and B. Schwom, “Engineering Design and Coomunication: Jump-starting the Engineering Curriculum,” manuscript in preparation. D. Ullman, The Mechanical Design Process, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997. J. R. Dixon and C. Poli, Engineering Design and Design for Manufacturing, Field Stone Publishers, Conway, MA, 1995. C. L. Dym and P. Little, Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, John Wiley, New York, 1999. (Spanish translation published by Limusa Wiley, Balderas, Mexico, 2002. Second (English) edition in press for 2003 publication.) M. M. Lih, “Educating Future Executives,” ASEE Prism, January 1997. J. D. Lang, S. Cruse, F. D. McVey and J. McMasters, “Industry Expectations of New Engineers: A Survey to Assist Curriculum Designers,” Journal of Engineering Education, 88 (1), 43–51, January 1999. J. R. Phillips and M. M. Gilkeson, “Reflections on a Clinical Approach to Engineering Design,” Proceedings of The International ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Miami, FL, September 1991. J. R. Phillips (Editor), Engineering Clinic Issues, Proceedings of the 30th Anniversary Symposium, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, 25 April 1994. J. J. Rosenberg, “Stimulating Appropriate Use of Simulation in Design,” in Ref. 3. C. L. Dym, “Representing Designed Artifacts: The Languages of Engineering Design,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 1 (1), 75–108, 1994. S. J. Lukasik, “Systems, Systems of Systems, and the Education of Engineers” in Ref. 3. Catalog, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, 1996–98. I believe Stanford’s Larry Liefer was the first to articulate this phrase.


赞助商链接

更多相关文章:
更多相关标签:

All rights reserved Powered by 甜梦文库 9512.net

copyright ©right 2010-2021。
甜梦文库内容来自网络,如有侵犯请联系客服。zhit325@126.com|网站地图