A Model for Curricular Revision: The Caseof Engineering

Michael Harris & Roxanne Cullen

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract The ability to teach one’s self is a critical skill for workers in the 21st centurybecause of the rapidity of change and innovation. To educate students to meet thischallenge, we need to re-envision curriculum with the goal of producing graduates whohave the ability to complete the transition from novice to expert after graduation andcontinue to deepen their expertise throughout their careers. Using engineering education asa model of current efforts in curricular revision, we present a method for curricular reviewbased on learning types in order to design an undergraduate experience that istransformative and congruent with a learner-centered approach.

Key words learner-centered . curriculum . learning types . engineering education

Curriculum Reform: The Case of Engineering Education

The recently released report by the Millenium Project of the University of Michigan,Engineering for a Changing World: A Roadmap to the Future of Engineering Practice,Research, and Education by James J. Duderstadt (2007) offers a thought provoking andcomprehensive analysis of the perceived critical state of engineering education in the U.S. As

Innov High EducDOI 10.1007/s10755-008-9090-z

Michael Harris received his Ph.D. in Public Policy from Indiana University, his Master’s degree fromTel-Aviv University, and his undergraduate degree in economics and business administration from Ben-llanUniversity. He is a graduate of the Harvard Graduate School of Education Institute for EducationalManagement (IEM) and Management Development Program (MDP). Dr. Harris serves as the Provost andVice President for Academic Affairs at Kettering University.

Roxanne Cullen holds a Ph.D. in English from Bowling Green State University with a specialization inComposition Theory and Rhetoric. She is currently Professor of English at Ferris State University, where shehas also held various administrative posts.

M. Harris (*)Kettering University, 1700 West University Ave., Flint, MI 48504, USAe-mail: MHarris@kettering.edu

R. CullenDepartment of English, Ferris State University, Prakken 120, Big Rapids, MI 49307, USAe-mail: cullenr@ferris.edu

the title suggests, the report offers a guide for engineering education, calling for a broadenedundergraduate experience and suggesting that the current undergraduate engineeringcurriculum be replaced with a liberal arts undergraduate education followed by a practice-based graduate experience as is consistent with other professional degrees like medicine or law.

Ideally, the model of a broader, liberal arts undergraduate experience is workable; andthis proposal is founded on significant research and understanding of the multiple andcompeting forces impacting education reform. However, the solution presupposes that thecurrent state of liberal arts education has progressed in a manner that engineering educationhas not. There is ample evidence in the numerous and intense calls for institutionalaccountability, or to use Duderstadt’s phrase “ a cacophony of reports and a chorus ofconcerns” (p. 10), that the liberal arts curriculum is equally obsolete and that we need to re-evaluate the epistemology and methodology of undergraduate education. Reforming theundergraduate engineering curriculum with the current liberal arts curriculum would besubstituting one old model with another.

To meet the changing world of the 21st century, we need a new paradigm to underpin theundergraduate experience as a whole, a paradigm centered on learning. Much progress hasalready been made in shifting classroom practices to be consistent with this new paradigm.The American Psychological Association’s fourteen principles pertaining to learners andthe learning process, which underpin much of learner-centered pedagogy, are now “widelyshared and implicitly recognized in many excellent programs found in today's schools”(Learner-Centered Work Group of the American Psychological Association's Board ofEducation Affairs 2007). However, pedagogy alone will not suffice in assuring a completeinstitutional shift toward learner-centeredness. All processes within the institution need tobe examined and reconsidered under the lens of the new paradigm. (Harris and Cullen2008a). Using engineering education as an example, in this article we offer a new approachto curriculum revision that is consistent with the learner-centered paradigm.

Consensus on Outcomes

There is already general agreement on what skills and abilities 21st century graduates need,regardless of discipline. The Board of Directors of The Association of American Collegesand Universities (2004) identified five key educational outcomes which should serve as thefoundation of a quality education. Those outcomes are 1) strong analytical, communication,quantitative and information skills; 2) deep understanding of and hands-on experience withthe inquiry practices of disciplines that explore the natural, social, and cultural realms; 3)intercultural knowledge and collaborative problem-solving skills; 4) a proactive sense ofresponsibility for individual, civic, and social choices; and 5) habits of mind that fosterintegrative thinking and the ability to transfer skills and knowledge from one setting toanother. (pp. 5–6). Likewise, in writing for the National Leadership Council for LiberalEducation and America’s Promise, an initiative sponsored by the AAC&U, Crutcher et al.(2007) identified analogous aims and outcomes for all students, regardless of discipline,outcomes necessary for survival in a 21st century workforce.

Business and industry concur. Regarding engineering graduates specifically, Spinks et al.(2006) called for graduates to have a sound knowledge of the engineering fundamentalswithin their discipline and social and interpersonal skill sets including communication,team-working, and business skills. (p.3). Vest (2007), President Emeritus of MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, called for engineering graduates to “write and communicate well,think about ethics and social responsibility, conceive and operate systems of great

Innov High Educ

complexity within a framework of sustainable development and be prepared to live andwork as global citizens.”(p.1).

Achieving Outcomes

Many of the outcomes identified both by educators and business and industry are skillstraditionally associated with the liberal arts curriculum. However, the report by the NationalLeadership Council (Crutcher et al. 2007) emphasized that these aims and outcomes shouldnot reside solely within a general education curriculum; they must be embedded in all fieldsof study whether the field is part of the traditional arts and sciences disciplines or not. Inregard to liberal arts education, the report states that, “ it is time to challenge the idea—tacitly but solidly established in American education—that simply taking a prescribednumber of courses in liberal arts and science fields is sufficient“ (p.33). Flynn (2006) madethis point even more directly:

What we currently call the core curriculum (or distribution requirements) also needstransformation. This prescribed set of required courses from an array of departments,assembled in the hope that a well rounded general education will miraculously occurfrom what is basically a cafeteria menu, is without design or merit. (p. 8)

This statement strikes at the heart of the change that must take place in theundergraduate experience. Adding more courses, transferring more information, will nottransform students. In order to prepare graduates for the demands of the new workplace, wecannot simply add requirements; instead we must carefully construct an undergraduateexperience that is transformative. Duderstadt and others have acknowledged the need toreduce the size of the existing engineering curriculum in order to enhance skill developmentin communication, teamwork, analytical capacity, entrepreneurship, global awareness, andexperiential learning. However, creating room for a menu of courses from liberal artsdisciplines will not assure the intended outcome. While we are closer to reaching consensuson what the new graduate must know in order to succeed in the changing world and the21st century workforce, we have yet to agree on how those outcomes are best achieved.

Our current model of undergraduate education is based on an epistemology,methodology, and instructional paradigm focused on the transference of information andassimilation of knowledge. As technology transformation has accelerated and problemshave become more complex, we have responded by adding courses that attempt toaccelerate information transfer. Covering more or different content is not the answer.Bransford et al. (2000) noted that too often current curricula focus on memory rather thanlearning, leaving students with ’limited opportunities to understand or make sense oftopics“ (p. 8). Tagg (2003) referred to this as educational atomism.

In the “educational atomism” of the Instruction Paradigm, the parts of the teaching andlearning process are seen as discrete entities. The parts exist prior to and independentof any whole; the whole is no more than the sum of the parts, or even less. The collegeinteracts with students only in discrete, isolated environments, cut off from oneanother because the parts—the classes—are prior to the whole. A “college education”is the sum of the student's experience of a series of discrete, largely unrelated, three-credit classes. (p.110)

We must resist the temptation to believe that information in and of itself is valuable andinstead build a curriculum focused on the art and science of learning, on the transformation

Innov High Educ

of students as learners as called for by Barr and Tagg (1995), who introduced the concept ofa learner-centered paradigm.

Accreditation and Curriculum Reform

The Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has taken significantsteps in addressing this need for change by changing accreditation criteria so as to putmore focus on student learning outcomes. The new standards, known as EC2000, askprograms to set clear educational objectives, to collaborate with industry, and to conductoutcomes assessment and feed data from these assessments back into the program forcontinuous improvement. The conceptual framework underpinning these requirementsposited that program change, including curriculum and instruction and instructionalmethods, would impact student experiences in and out of the classroom. The newcriteria were piloted in 1996 and 1997, and new standards became mandatory in 2001with major emphasis on Criterion 3 a–k. Criteria 3 a–k require students to demonstratethe following:

a. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics science, and engineeringb. An ability to design and conduct experiments as well as to analyze and interpret datac. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needsd. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teamse. An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problemsf. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibilityg. An ability to communicate effectivelyh. The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a

global and societal contexti. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learningj. A knowledge of contemporary issuesk. An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice (Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology 2007, p. 18)

ABET anticipated that this shift in accreditation criteria would drive curricular reform,and research has indicated that incremental change has indeed taken place. At the request ofABET, The Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State undertook the task toanswer this question. Are engineers who graduated from programs since implementation ofthe EC2000 standards better prepared for careers in engineering than their counterparts?Lattua et al. (2006) reported on the three year evaluation in the report entitled EngineeringChange: A Study of the Impact of EC2000. The report provided promising data on the effectaccrediting criteria has had on curriculum change. Of particular interest was the fact thatfaculty members have tried to embed some of the subject areas traditionally conceived of asliberal arts territory; however, they did so with little or no reported decrease in other areasof study.

So while faculty members and program chairpersons agreed that engineering programcurricula had changed considerably following implementation of the EC2000 criteria, thecurricula nonetheless remained entrenched in the traditional paradigm by focusing onadding content rather than embedding skills and redesigning courses and programs. Fewprograms witnessed any reduction in the traditional emphases, yet program chairpersonsand faculty members reported an increased emphasis on nearly all of the professional skillsand knowledge sets associated with EC2000 Criterion 3.a–k.

Innov High Educ

Curriculum Reform in the Context of the New Paradigm

While incremental change has taken place as a result of the ABET efforts, more needs to bedone. Barr (1998) wrote, “Without a vision and design for the whole of the system,incremental changes do not add up to anything significant” (p. 23). We must transform theundergraduate curriculum to create an educational experience that focuses on the students’purposeful attention to the process of learning, a curriculum that is intentional with the aimof transforming students from novices toward expert status in a given field. It is throughthis process that students will learn how they learn and acquire the self monitoring skillsthat allow experts to teach themselves. We recognize, of course, that the undergraduatecurriculum cannot in 4 to 6 years develop graduates who have achieved expert status.Research indicates a minimum of 10 years to achieve expert status in any discipline(Feltovich et al. 2006).

The goal, rather, is to develop habits of mind and intentional learning strategies andskills that will foster continued growth toward achieving expert status after graduation andcontinued life-long learning. The ability to teach one’s self is critical in the 21st centuryworkforce because of the rapidity of change and innovation. Many fields now find that theycannot accelerate the transfer of information to students fast enough to keep up with the rateof change in the knowledge of the discipline. Gover and Huray (2007) estimated, forexample, that by the time engineering graduates walk across the stage with their diplomas,nearly half of the knowledge of their discipline is obsolete. When the focus is onknowledge rather than on learning, obsolescence is inevitable.

To create this transformative curriculum, reformers must examine the core of what isneeded within a discipline and eliminate some existing elements in order to focus moredirectly and deeply on those transformative events that facilitate self-regulated learningstrategies exhibited by experts. The goal is to produce graduates who have the ability tocomplete the transition from novice to expert after graduation and continue to deepen theirexpertise throughout their careers. Graduates with these skills are more likely to be able tokeep pace with the rapidly changing work environment.

A considerable body of literature exists on expertise and how the transformation fromnovice to expert is achieved. When we say an expert knows something “inside and out”, itis not necessarily just a figure of speech. Experts solve problems at a faster rate thannovices because they are able to rely on underlying concepts and to recognize patterns thatare not yet easily accessed by the novice (Bransford et al. 2000); and they understandconcepts in holistic ways, from various perspectives, or “inside and out.” Experts do not getdistracted by the details. Clark (2003) wrote that experts can execute skills with greaterease, for tasks that have been repeated over and over become so automatic that they areessentially hardwired and thus bypass the working memory. However, time and practicealone, which can facilitate automacity of skill, is not enough to create expertise. Mostimportant, experts also have more accurate self monitoring skills or metacognitivefacility in terms of their ability to detect errors and the status of their owncomprehension. In other words, they recognize what they do not know. Bransford etal. (2000) discussed this factor in relation to psychological research on metacognition.Flavel (1979) defined metacognition as individuals’ knowledge of their own knowledge aswell as their abilities to predict their performances on tasks in order to monitor theircurrent levels of mastery and understanding. Experts know how to practice or testthemselves in order to continue learning. Metacognitive ability allows them to test theirunderstanding of partial solutions in order to prevent errors and other impediments towardreaching a goal. (Feltovich et al. 2006).

Innov High Educ

Psychological studies of expertise (DeGroot 1965, Duncker 1945, Glaser 1976, Meehl1954, Newall and Simon 1972, Reitman 1965) have shown that experts certainly knowmore than others and they know in a different way. Feltovich et al. (2006) noted that,“expertise is appropriately viewed not as a simple matter of fact or skill acquisition butrather as a complex construct of adaptations of mind and body which include substantialself monitoring” (p.57), Further, the complex developmental process involving extensiveexperience through which an individual becomes an expert cannot be easily replicated; or,as Feltovich et al. (2006) pointed out, “expertise is a long-term developmental process,resulting from rich instrumental experiences in the world and extensive practice. Thesecannot simply be handed to someone” (p. 57).

However, research by Kruger and Dunning (1999) indicated that metacognitivestrategies are “explicitly learnable” (Feltovich et al. (2006) p. 57). Problem-based learning,for example, is a direct outgrowth of early research in the differences between novices andexperts (Barrows et al. 1978, Barrows and Tamblyn 1980, Elstein et al. 1978) and hasbecome a standard practice in medical education as well as in other fields (Feltovich et al.2006). Research on self-regulated learners (Graham and Harris 1989, Weinstein and Mayer1986), those individuals who display intrinsic motivation to learn as well as exhibit the selfregulatory habits of experts, has indicated that these strategies can be fostered in those whoare not self-regulating learners. Zimmerman (1990) claimed that “our understanding of theinterdependence of these processes [metacognitive, motivational, behavioral] has nowreached a point where systematic efforts can be launched to teach self-regulation to studentswho approach learning passively” (p. 14). A curriculum that facilitates the transformationfrom novice toward expert is one that achieves a balance between assimilation of newknowledge and practical application focused on deepening that knowledge throughmetacognitive ability. Such a curriculum is one that is deep rather than broad, and itshould promote deep learning.

The concept of deep learning is derived from the work of Marton and Saljo (1976),which called for learners to integrate new information into existing knowledge, leadingthem to adopt new perspectives and understanding (Ramsden 2003, Tagg 2003). Deeplearning requires an investment on the part of the learner who employs a synthesis oflearning strategies including discussion with peers, reflective writing, practical application,and reading in order to process fully the information and knowledge with the added benefitof retaining and transferring information at higher rates (Biggs, 1987, 2003, Entwistle 1981,Entwistle and Ramsden 1983, Prosser and Millar 1989, Ramsden 2003, Tagg 2003). Tagg(2003) articulated this phenomenon as follows: “Deep learning is learning that takes root inour apparatus of understanding, in the embedded meanings that define us and that we use todefine the world” (p. 70). Active learning strategies that require sense making, self-assessment, and reflection are key to fostering this ability (Bransford et al. (2000) p. 12).Biggs (1987) and Ramsden (2003) noted that, while some learners may gravitate toward adeep approach to learning, the conditions for learning established by the instructor canaffect the learner’s ability to adopt these strategies. Feltovich, Prietula, and Ericsson’sresearch has led them to conclude that our current educational paradigm is insufficient.

It is not reasonable to teach students knowledge and rules about a domain and thenexpect them to be able to convert this material into effective professional skills. . . .Schools need to help students acquire the skills and mechanisms for basic mastery ofthe domain and then allow them to gradually take over control of their professionalskills by designing deliberate practice and activities that produce continuedimprovement. (p. 61)

Innov High Educ

In other words, as educators, we can create conditions for learning that facilitate deeplearning, thus creating a transformative experience for students. These conditions includethe physical spaces for teaching as well as co-curricular activities, professional developmentof faculty and staff, and a host of other factors which influence the learning environment asa whole (Harris and Cullen 2008b). In this article, we focus exclusively on curriculumrevision recognizing that the effect of curriculum design must be conducted in concert withthe development of teaching strategies and learning opportunities within that curricularframework.

Curriculum Review

Work in curriculum theory has provided a variety of perspectives on curriculum review.The work of Eisner and Vallance (1974), Giroux et al. (1981), Miller (1983), Miller andSeller (1990) offers a range of perspectives on curriculum. Of these, Miller and Seller(1990) devised a scheme that integrated concepts of multiple types of learning and providesthe theoretical underpinning for the model of curriculum reform we present. If we are tomake a comprehensive shift toward learner-centeredness, then our focus on learners mustextend beyond classroom pedagogy. We must examine the framework of our curriculaunder the lens of learner-centeredness, aligning our curriculum design with pedagogicalpractices that respond to learners’ varying needs.

Different kinds of learning are necessary within any curriculum in order to accommodateindividual learners and achieve a multiplicity of desired learning outcomes. Miller andSeller (1990) identified three types of learning according to the role of the learner. First istransmissive learning which is also sometimes called assimilative. Transmissive learningassumes knowledge is content, a commodity possessed by individuals, controlled byeducators, and transferrable to students through demonstration, telling, and modeling. Freire(1971/2003) described this as a banking model of learning whereby teachers depositedknowledge into students like depositing money into a bank account. Transmissive learningis the most common mode of learning in the traditional paradigm, one in which studentsreceive information that they add to their existing knowledge. In this model the primaryrelationship is instructor to student.

The second category of learning is transactional which assumes knowledge isconstructed by learners through the process of learning. Transactional learning ischaracterized by experiential activities, student-to-student learning through collaborativeacts of discovery, active learning, and team-based projects. Knowledge is not owned by theinstructor. Rather the role of the educator is to facilitate learning and to create environmentswhich stimulate learners’ interests, recognizing that learning is social while at the same timeindividual.

The third category is transformative whereby the learner must reassess new knowledgein relation to existing knowledge and reflect upon the underlying assumptions and biasesthat are the foundation of that existing knowledge. Mezirow (1990) characterizedtransformative learning as learning through self-reflection, self-awareness, and self-learning. A course that fosters transformative learning employs specific strategies. Thefirst is what Mezirow referred to as an activating event which can involve either thepresentation of a disorienting dilemma or conflicting evidence for the student to resolve,some exercise or problem which challenges the students’ habitual way of knowing orunderstanding. This event is followed by the student critically examining the underlyingassumptions underpinning that habitual understanding. Critical discourse and reflection are

Innov High Educ

part of this examination and are followed by an opportunity to explore or test out newconceptions.

Curriculum examination as directed by ABET, for example, is typical of scientificcurricula rooted in the traditional instructional paradigm. The focus of such a review ofcurriculum is on areas of content knowledge arranged sequentially. The ABET table forexamination of curriculum (Table I) illustrates this concept.

In this model, each course is identified according to the type of knowledge (basic mathand science, engineering, design, or general education) to be disseminated. It is also tiedclosely to credit hours and sequencing of courses. While it is outcomes based, it assumes atransmissive approach to curriculum with a focus on knowledge rather than on learning.

We propose a model of curriculum revision based on learning rather than on knowledgewith the goal of integrating the three types of learning opportunities. The three typescannot, however, be fully integrated as they arise from opposing philosophies of learning;but building a curriculum that progressively shifts from transmissive learning to transactiveand transformational learning is consistent with the shift that Knowles (1984) identifiedbetween pedagogy and androgogy. Knowles defined pedagogy as the art and science ofteaching and andragogy as the art and science of helping others learn. The concept ofandragogy is based on the assumption that adults are self-directed learners and that theirexperiences affect their learning both in terms of preconceptions and resources for futurelearning. Furthermore, adults have a strong sense of immediacy and relevance regardinglearning which makes their motivation for learning more internal. Critical reflection is key,therefore, to the transformative learning that develops autonomous thinking because criticalreflection requires adult learners to consider how knowledge fits into their preconceivedideas, previous knowledge, and experience. Traditional-aged college students are in atransitional phase between pedagogy and androgogy. While in many respects they can beconsidered adult learners, there is also a considerable amount of knowledge that is new tothem and for which they do not have a substantial network of previous knowledge fromwhich to draw. In other words, there is still a need for some transmissive learningopportunities.

Therefore, our proposed model attempts to accommodate the three learning types,progressively reducing the opportunities for transmissive learning in favor of transactiveand transformational experiences. Both transactional and transformational perspectives areconstructivist in nature making them congruent with the learner-centered paradigm. These

Table I ABET Curriculum Review Table

Year; Semesteror Quarter

Course(Department,Number, Title)

Category (Credit Hours)

Math & BasicSciences

Engineering TopicsCheck if ContainsSignificant Design (✓)

GeneralEducation

Other

Totals-abet Basic-Level RequirementsOverall Totalfor Degree

Percent of TotalTotals MustSatisfy One Set

Minimum Semester CreditHours

32 hrs 48 hrs

Minimum Percentage 25% 37.5%

Innov High Educ

approaches view learners as individuals in control of their own learning and view learningas a holistic process, promoting the social function of learning. In this more holisticapproach, curricula are organized according to broad concepts and types of learningopportunities as opposed to a sequence of units of knowledge.

To illustrate we begin with a consideration of the ABET learning outcomes as they relateto the three types of learning. We recognize, of course, that courses can be taught from avariety of pedagogical standpoints and that, in the end, the type of learning that takes placein the course has everything to do with the strategies employed by the teacher. However,the individual outcomes do lend themselves to specific types of learning, though obviouslythese types of learning are not exclusive to the outcomes or vice versa. (See Table II.) Forexample, outcome b, “An ability to design and conduct experiments as well as to analyzeand interpret data naturally” lends itself to transactive learning since the outcome involvesexperiential learning; and in most curricula conducting experiments is traditionallylaboratory based and collaborative. The same is true for outcome c, “An ability to designa system, component or process to meet desired needs”. Outcome d, “An ability to functionon multi-disciplinary teams” is transactional by definition. On the other hand, outcome f,“An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility” lends itself to transformativelearning. While a transmissive-based course on professional ethics is not unheard of, theconsideration of professional ethics lends itself to opportunities for reflection andencourages learners to fit professional ethical concerns within their individual existingframework or understanding of the profession and their own ethics. The same is true for theconsideration of global and societal contexts (outcome h), contemporary and ethical issues(outcome j), all of which are tied to life-long learning (outcome i) and are logical issues touse for the examination of one’s underlying assumptions.

The role of communication (outcome g) in self-reflection and critical discourse appearsobvious, but also demands emphasis. Much of the empirical research on learning that hassupported the constructivist philosophy has supported the role that language formation

Table II ABET Criteria and Learning Types

ABET Criterion Learning Types

a- An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics science,and engineering

Transmissive /Transactional /Transformative

b- An ability to design and conduct experiments as well as toanalyze and interpret data

Transactional/Transformative

c- An ability to design a system, component or process to meetdesired needs

Transactional/Transformative

d- An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams Transactionale- An ability to identify, formulate and solve engineeringproblems

Transactional

f- And understanding of professional and ethical responsibility Transformativeg- An ability to communicate effectively Transactional /Transformativeh- The broad education necessary to understand the impact ofengineering solutions in a global and societal context

Transformative

i- A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage inlife-long learning

Transactional /Transformative

j- A knowledge of contemporary issues Transformativek- An ability to use the techniques, skills and modernengineering tools necessary for engineering practice

Transmissive /Transactional /Transformative

Innov High Educ

plays in learning of all kinds. Of particular interest was a study (Howe et al. 1990) of theeffectiveness of group discussion on learning. The finding was that students improved theirindividual understanding of concepts through discussion whether or not the transcripts ofthe discussion showed that the group appeared to make any progress in solving the problembeing discussed. In other words, the act of using language, speaking or writing, increasedcomprehension. This supports the write-to-learn philosophy, which is predicated upon thebelief that the act of language formation is key to learning and comprehension or, asexpressed in the often quoted statement attributed to E.M. Forster, “How do I know what Ithink until I see what I say?”. A clear proof that comprehension has been achieved is whenthe individual can articulate concepts in language, written or oral. Therefore, a curriculumthat emphasizes learning is both writing- and speaking-intensive.

Much of this reform is dependent upon emerging research by engineering educators whohave already made significant strides in recognizing the need to redesign curriculum ratherthan simply add to the current model. In a special report, The Research Agenda for the NewDiscipline of Engineering (National Engineering Education Research Colloquies 2006) thesteering committee made the following statement:

Will the U.S. have engineers prepared to collaborate and lead in a rapidly changingworld? The answer to that question, in part, relies on our ability to transform how weeducate our future engineers. Our premise is that we need fundamental knowledge ofhow engineers learn to under-gird these transformational decisions. (p.257)

In this report a national research framework was presented, outlining five areas of neededresearch to “ensure a coherent, rigorous and innovative foundation for systemic and sustainedtransformation of our engineering education system” (p.257). The five areas are engineeringepistemologies, engineering learning mechanisms, engineering learning systems, engineeringdiversity and inclusiveness, and engineering assessment. The goal is to encourage researchthat will inform how content should be taught and how learning environments should bedesigned. With this knowledge the fundamentals of engineering knowledge can be identifiedin order to build a curriculum that facilitates the growth of students from novice to expert withan emphasis on deep learning as opposed to added content.

Mapping a new curriculum in this model will involve the identification of broadconcepts and themes and the design of learning experiences to facilitate their acquisition.As reformers chart out the typical student path through the curriculum, they will need toinclude more transmissive experiences early in the curriculum as students build aknowledge base. These transmissive learning opportunities should be accompanied bytransactional opportunities, thus allowing the learners to gain control over their learning.Transformative experiences need to be carefully incorporated at critical junctionsthroughout the curriculum. For example, if the program has a first-semester course thatfunctions as an introduction to the discipline, this course could be designed as atransformative experience involving considerable self-analysis as well as diagnostic inquiryregarding learners’ current knowledge, preconceptions, and expectations of the discipline.The same would be true of any capstone or culminating experience. The more expert thelearners become as they progress through the curriculum, the more they advancetransformatively. The implication is that the more novice the learners, the more they willbenefit from influx of knowledge (transmissive) and transactional experiences. For thatreason the inclusion of experiential work in conjunction with transmissive learning isrecommended as in the cooperative learning model used in some engineering schools.Cooperative learning opportunities provide students with experiences that increasinglyacclimate and socialize them to the corporate environment as they increase their

Innov High Educ

knowledge-base and theoretical understanding of their discipline. As learners advancetoward expertise, gaining practice employing self-regulated learning and metacognitivestrategies, the more those transmissive and transactional experiences will becometransformative for them.

Conclusion

Engineering educators and researchers are heeding the call to reinvent engineeringeducation; and they are approaching the task with the rigor and creative design facilitythat one would expect of professional engineers in part, no doubt, because of the growingconcern over the perceived gap between math, science, and engineering education in theU.S and abroad. One of today’s significant challenges is the growing unease that the U.S. islosing its competitiveness in science and engineering as articulated by the NationalAcademies’ (2005) report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. In this report, the NationalAcademies of Science spoke of the need to develop engineers and scientists who have thecapacity to work across boundaries, to function globally, and to be innovative. They callednot for more graduates but for better graduates in these disciplines. We believe that revisingcurrent curricula with a focus on types of learning is one means of achieving this goal. Aswe noted earlier, the ability to teach one’s self is critical in the 21st century workforcebecause of the rapidity of change and innovation; and for that reason the educationalexperience we design for tomorrow’s graduates needs to be one that fosters independent,self-motivated, and self-regulated learning, a curriculum centered on the acquisition oflearning strategies as well as discipline content.

We have used engineering education as an example of the possibility for curriculumreform in higher education, in part because engineering has already made significant stridesin addressing the issues at hand. Close attention to discipline, pedagogy, and research onlearning is needed in all disciplines in order for us to redesign curricula that are congruentwith the shift toward learner-centeredness as well as to produce graduates able to cope withthe changing nature of today’s workforce.

References

Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (2007). Criteria for accrediting programs. RetrievedSeptember 19, 2008 from http://www.ABET.org

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2004). Our students’ best work: A framework foraccountability worthy of our mission. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges andUniversities.

Barr, R. (1998). Obstacles to implementing the learning paradigm. About Campus, 3(4), 18–25.Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education.

Change, 27(6), 13–25.Barrows, H. S., Freightner, J. W., Neufelt, V. R., & Norman, G. R. (1978). Analysis of the clinical methods of

medical students and physicians. Final Report, Ontario Department of Health Grants ODH- PR-273 &ODH-DM226. Hamilton, ON, Canada: McMaster University.

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. NewYork, NY: Springer.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, VI, Australia: AustralianCouncil for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, England: Open University.Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind experience and

school. Washington, DC: National Academy.

Innov High Educ

Clark, R. (2003). Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance improvement. SilverSprings, MD: International Society for Performance Improvement.

Crutcher, R., Obrien, P., Corrigan, R., & Schneider, C. (2007). College learning for the new global century:A Report from the national leadership council for liberal education & America’s promise. Washington,DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

DeGroot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.Duderstadt, J. J. (2007). Engineering for a changing world: A Roadmap to the future of engineering practice,

research and education. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://milproj.ummu.umich.eduDuncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (5, No. 270).Eisner, E., & Vallance, E. (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978). Medical problem solving. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational psychology for

students, teachers, and lecturers. Chichester, NY: Wiley.Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London, England: Croom Helm.Feltovich, P., Prietula, M., & Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In

K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertiseand expert performance (pp. 41–67). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Flavel, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognition monitoring: A new area of cognitive- developmental inquiry.American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

Flynn, W. (2006). The search for the learning-centered college. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/ResourceCenter/Projects_Partnerships/Current/NewExpedi-tions/IssuePapers/The_Search_for_the_Learning_Centered_College.htm

Freire, P. (1971/2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: ContinuumInternational.

Giroux, H., Penna, A., & Pinar, W. (1981). Curriculum & instruction: Alternatives in education. Berkeley,CA: McCutchan.

Glaser, R. (1976). Cognition and instructional design. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and Instruction (pp. 303–315). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gover, J., & Huray, P. (2007). Educating 21st century engineers. Retrieved September 28, 2008, from http://www.ieeeusa.org

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects onlearning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3),353–361.

Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2008a). Learner-centered leadership: An agenda for action. Innovative HigherEducation, 33(1), 21–29.

Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2008b). Using Assessment to Bring About Cultural Change: The Value ofAssessing Learning Spaces. Assessment Update, 20(3), 6–7, 10.

Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1990). Physics in the primary school: Peer interaction and theunderstanding of floating and sinking. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4(5), 459–475.

Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.Krugger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own

incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1121–1134.Lattua, L.,Terenzini, P., & Volkein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000.

Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://www.abet.orgLearner-Centered Work Group of the American Psychological Association's Board of Education Affairs

(2007). Learner-Centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform. RetrievedSeptember 19, 2008, from http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/learner_centered.php

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcomes and process. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.

Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of theevidence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Miller, J. (1983). The educational spectrum: Orientations to curriculum. New York, NY: Longman.Miller, J., & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives and practices. Toronto, ON, Canada: Copp Clark

Pitman Division, Longman.Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipator

learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.National Academies (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a

brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies.

Innov High Educ

National Engineering Education Research Colloquies (2006). The research agenda for the new discipline ofengineering education. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://www.abet.org

Newall, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The “how” and “why” of learning physics. European Journal of

Psychology of Education, 4(4), 513–528.Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London, England: Routledge Falmer.Reitman, W. R. (1965). Cognition and thought. New York, NY: Wiley.Spinks, N., Silburn, N., & Burchill, D. (2006). Educating Engineers for the 21st century: The industry view.

Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: The Royal Academy of Engineering.Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Boston, MA: Anker.Vest, C. (2007) Educating engineers for 2020 and beyond. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from www.nae.

edu/NAE/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-6QDRM9?OpenDocumeNTWeinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327, 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.Wheatley, M. (2007). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Fransisco,CA: Berret-Koehler.Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-Regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational

Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.

Innov High Educ