ASEE "21st Century Engineer"

Nov, 2-3, 2001

Kati Yrjänheikki

Finnish Association of Graduate Engineers TEK

Kati.Yrjanheikki@tek.fi

Minna Takala

Helsinki University of Technology and New Jersey Institute of Technology

Minna.Takala@hut.fi

Summary

During past decades Finnish society has been transforming itself towards Information Society. There has been intensive investment in engineering and science education and this has proven to be successful for entire society. However, there are multiple challenges related to engineering education that were addressed by engineering education experts in a series of Delphi interviews year 1997. These challenges emphasized more interdisciplinarity approach during studies and increasing requirements for lifelong learning. Intensive co-operation between stakeholders in engineering education was considered to be very important for engineering education system. As a result a general profile for the 21^st century engineers in a Learning Society was created.

Key words: engineering education, Learning Society, lifelong learning, interdisciplinarity, future scenarios, stakeholders

Introduction

In a society, where success is increasingly based on knowledge, skills and ability to learn, the system of education plays a key role. The whole educational system from kindergarten to higher education and continuous education has to be interrelated. At the same time, while the importance of the system of education is increasing, there are a lot of emerging factors in the environment, various opportunities and threats, challenging the system of education to change. Whether factors affecting engineering education are considered to be internal or external for the education system depends on the used definition of engineering education system.

Factors which have been transforming the skill needs of the workforce include the arrival of the Information Society, increased global competition, rapid development of new technology, shift towards service industries, redesign of work and organizational structures and striving for sustainable development. It is difficult, or even impossible, to write an exhaustive list of all factors that impact on the skill requirements of the ideal workforce in the Learning Society. This is because there are so many new, and also so much more, skill requirements. Skill requirements are on average more demanding than before. And above all, these skill requirements are changing fast, making educational design, planning and implementation a really challenging task.

It is no longer (if it ever was) possible to provide an engineering student with all knowledge he might need when entering professional practice. Professional skills often become outdated so quickly that engineering education fails in its purpose if it does not enable graduates to renew their knowledge and skills constantly. Learning how to learn, and especially how to unlearn has become increasingly important.

The aim of this paper is to discuss some of the key challenges that engineering education is facing in the Learning Society. The main focus of the paper is on the Finnish engineering education. However, because many of the challenges of the engineering education in the Learning Society are global, the analysis of the engineering education future is not limited only to Finland.

Case Finland

Finland's economy has gone through major changes in the 1990s. There has been a great shift from a capital intensive and hierarchical industry-based economy to an innovation and knowledge based Information Society. Finland is one of the most developed Information Societies in the world. The International Data Corporation in the US has ranked Finland as the second most developed Information Society in the world after the US.

Tulkki argues that one of the most important factors behind the ability to carry out the massive change of the Finnish economy to a knowledge-based economy has been the activity and flexibility of the Finnish engineering education. What will be the future? How does the Finnish engineering education meet the challenges of continuously developing knowledge-based economy - society where success is based on ability and willingness to learn?

The Finish Association of Graduate Engineers (TEK) has actively co-ordinated projects related with development of engineering education in Finland. TEK's previous engineering education development project DIA2000, was implemented during 1996-1998. Multiple stakeholders participated in the project and a series of Delphi interviews were conducted as well as several surveys related to engineering education.

This work continues in a three year FuturEng project, which started September 1, 2000. Again all important stakeholder groups of engineering education in Finland are participating the project: universities of technology, polytechnics, industry, the Finnish Ministry of Education, engineering students, alumni, the Confederation of the Finnish Employers and the association of Finnish Engineers. The project partners from the industry are Elisa Communications, Nokia and UPM-Kymmene.

The objective of the FuturEng project is to search for challenges of engineering education in the new knowledge-intensive economy (Learning Society). The project covers challenges on the engineering education structure, contents, numbers and educational design. The scope of the FuturEng project is engineering education in Finland as a whole, including undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing engineering education at the polytechnics and at universities. However, because many challenges of the engineering education in the Learning Society are global, a global aspect is of great importance in the project.

Requirements for the General Level of Education are Rising:
A Universal Higher Education?

Requirements for the general level of education are rising. The current objective of the Finnish Ministry of Education is that 65 – 70 % of each age group is educated at tertiary level institutions, in universities and polytechnics. In engineering education the increase has been especially dramatic. The number of Bachelor and Master level engineering students has doubled between 1990 - 2000. Year 1998, the intake of engineering students at universities of technology exceeded the number of high school graduates that took long course in mathematics.

The 1960s were the time of nine-year-long comprehensive school reform in Finland. In the 1970s and 1980s the upper secondary level education expanded to cover almost the whole population. Is it now time for a universal higher education?

In addition to the need to increase the general level of education of the Finnish population by increasing the number of students in Bachelor and Master degree education, there is an increasing need to increase the graduate and continuing education as well. The number of Doctoral and Ph.D. degrees in engineering has also increased in Finland by 50 % in the 1990s. The intensive growth has its impediments. The resources for education have not increased at same tact. There is a lack of many resources, funding, facilities, qualified faculty members and also students.

Educational planning in a fast changing environment is an extremely difficult task. It is practically impossible to forecast the exact labor market demand of engineers in a certain field of technology during the coming 10 - 15 years. The problem of forecasting the labor market demand of engineers in Finland in future is emphasized, because of the fact that the number of Finnish engineering students is internationally compared extremely high.

The amount of engineering students is also among highest in the OECD countries. 24 % of all tertiary level degrees in Finland are obtained in engineering. It is the highest share in Europe and second highest globally, Korea leading with 27 % share of engineering degrees in tertiary level education. Therefore, it is of vital importance that Finnish engineering education prepares graduates that are employable not only in one specific industry sector.

Intensive Co-operation Between Stakeholders of Engineering Education

When considering engineering education, at least six important stakeholders can be identified: engineering graduates (alumni), engineering students, representatives of polytechnics and universities of technology (faculty and staff), industry and other employees of future engineers, policy-makers and other experts, including representatives from organizations involved in, and promoting research and development. There is no one right definition of the customer and actor in engineering education. All stakeholders are important in carrying out and developing engineering education. Depending on the viewpoint the roles and interests are changed and mixed.

The International Institute for Management Development IMD has ranked Finland as the best country in the world in research co-operation between companies and universities. Finnish graduated engineers have on average 20 months discipline relevant working experience. More than every fifth graduate has worked abroad during university studies. It is very common to combine studies and work especially after 3^rd year of studies. This develops skills and attitudes needed in life long learning.

On the other hand, the duration of studies of tertiary level students is among longest and graduated students among oldest in the OECD countries in Finland and engineering is no exception. Somewhat contradictory goals, shorter studying times and close co-operation between industry and universities are both goals set by the Finnish Ministry of Education.

Life-long Learning – A Must for All Professionals

It is no longer possible to provide an engineering student with all knowledge he might need when entering professional practice. Graduated engineers can’t assume that after finishing their studies, they could continue their career until retirement without any need for professional development and continuing education. The need to update knowledge and skills during one’s career is evident. However, lifelong learning is not just a new subject to be added to the curriculum. Rather it’s a state of mind. Positive attitudes towards learning and willingness to learn are the key features. And these attitudes are developed during the engineering studies.

For engineering education, this means that the fundamental objective is to create a good basic knowledge of the natural sciences as well as the ability and motivation to learn new things. It is only with a good basic knowledge of natural sciences that engineers are able to apply their knowledge and skills in new contexts in a different way, and thus be innovative.

Despite the increasing need for life-long learning there is no the formal structure for continuing education in Finland. In addition to short courses, continuing education centers of universities of technology have offered so called PD (Professional Development) programs, but compared to the number of engineers in Finland, the volume of the education has been quite marginal.

How to educate a learning practitioner, an engineer that is continuously able and willing to learn more? Bucciarelli suggests that more open-ended exercises, in which students must actively participate in the formulation of a problem, should be used in engineering education. Through this type of education students learn how to construct, evaluate, and judge among alternatives. In other words, students learn how to learn. Another viewpoint to consider, when trying to motivate engineering students for continuous learning is interdisciplinarity, to encourage them into cross-disciplinary studies.

Increased Need for Interdisciplinarity

Engineering know-how is the backbone of the Finnish industries, although to some extent Finns have been unable to transform it to commercial success. Hundreds of case studies made during "The Competitive Advantage of Finland" –project confirmed that the development of marketing, financing and strategic skills did not quite keep up with the expansion of technical knowledge.

The results of the research in natural sciences and technology are utilized broadly also outside these scientific fields. Natural sciences and technology offer tools and methods for generating new knowledge also in other scientific fields. Non-technology related interdisciplinary studies, for example in humanities, are increasingly valued as a criterion of a good engineering education.

The engineering profession is no longer a profession that could easily be defined by listing a dozen of skills and qualities related to the engineer’s own field of technology. In the Delphi interviews of the Finnish policy makers in engineering education, 15 out of 16 participants (94 %) believed that interdisciplinary skills are increasingly valued as a criterion of the quality of engineering education. Also the European Round Table of Industrialists ERT, Vernon and Tadmor et alii believe that universities should design engineering degree programs with broader context increasing interdiscipilinarity.

Interdisciplinary studies, for example studies in humanities, improve an engineer’s judgment and awareness of professional and ethical responsibility. Interdisciplinary studies help the engineer to cope with the changing social, economical and political conditions that are interrelated with technology and its development. Professional and ethical responsibilities are of great importance, when the technology can be used to either enable or prevent sustainable development. Therefore, interdisciplinary studies, especially in humanities and economics should be an essential part of engineering education.

The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to support learning may produce significant results for interdisciplinary studies. However, education is more than teaching and learning with emphasis on technology. Sinko and Lehtinen point out that when analyzing the impacts of technology on learning and teaching one must ask how we can broaden our viewpoint to embrace a more extensive interpretation of Information Society. By more extensive interpretation of Information Society Sinko and Lehtinen mean putting emphasis on qualitative changes in work, getting information, social participation and everyday life. Wider scope and understanding changes in the environment and context is needed in ethical and sustainable decision-making.

The study on the competitiveness of the Finnish industrial clusters "Advantage Finland" criticizes traditional industrial analysis for its limited scope. It is argued that by specifying strict boundaries of industries a bulk of the older research fails to see the important interconnections and knowledge flows that are typical for a cluster. Therefore, the growth potential of various fields can’t be analyzed by studying separate branches – practically none of them would succeed without sufficient supporting structures.

The industry consists of different clusters, but engineering education at universities of technology in Finland is divided in departments based on traditional lines of businesses. New innovations are often found in the boundaries of different industry clusters. One important issue to consider is that how does the departmental structure of engineering education support cross-discipline interaction, not only between traditional engineering disciplines, but also with other scientific and educational disciplines (e.g. arts, medicine, biology, business etc.) Is there a need to reorganize the structure of engineering education institutions to better support cross-discipline interaction and interdisciplinary studies of engineering education students?

Profile of A Good Engineer In the Learning Society

The following profile of a good engineer, was created based on the Delphi interviews of the Finnish policymakers in engineering education during the DIA2000 project. All participants believed that the importance of interdisciplinary skills and broadmindness of engineers was essential for the future engineers. The engineers of the future would need to have:

In addition to a solid basic knowledge of the natural sciences, three factors seem to be strongly emphasized as crucial skills and qualities of a good engineer. Together with the Delphi experts, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology ABET, The Board of European Engineering Students BEST and the Finnish Academies of Technology stress the importance of the ability and willingness to learn, good interpersonal skills in the global business environment and the ability to work in a team.

Does every engineer need to fit in the same profile of a good engineer? According to Vernon, 75 - 80 % of engineers would need to be broad-based for general industrial work. The remainders 20 - 25 % would need to specialize for research, design and development. In the Delphi interviews, policy-makers agreed with Vernon and held the opinion that in the future, only a few engineers who are specializing in one narrow field of technology will be needed. On the contrary, Finnish industry leaders believe that there will also be a need for very specialized engineers in the future, especially in large organizations.

Figure 1 illustrates the general profile of a good engineer in the Learning Society. It seems that also in the future, specialists will be needed alongside generalists. However, it has to be emphasized that deep specialization in one narrow field of technology should not lead into isolated narrowmindness and inability to work with others. It is very uncommon that engineers work in an organization with only engineers, and also then they need to be able to communicate with other stakeholders (customers, suppliers, shareholders etc.) of the company. Specialists and generalists need to be able to operate and communicate in the demanding Learning Society working environment that is constantly under change.

Ernest T. Smerdon past-president of ASEE discusses the same topic from US perspective in his article "Global Challenges in Engineering Education" . The same topics are emphasized as well as a systems perspective, more holistic approach to problem solving. Smerdon provides a thoughtful list about the components of the holistic engineering education of the 21^st Century. He compares traditional analytical model for engineering education to integrative model of the future (see Table 1.) The new model emphasizes uncertainty emerging from the fast changing environment, technological development and increased ethical and social responsibility. Skills related with continuous learning and creativity dealing with chaos and handling ambiguity, are considered to become increasingly important.

Table 1 Components of the Holistic Engineering Education of the 21^st Century.

The Finnish model seems to combine the both models. Yet the analytic model creates basis for the traditional specialist engineering education and the integrative model for more systemic and holistic generalist engineering education. This distinction is needed because Finnish engineers are increasingly operating in professions and industries that used to be untraditional to engineers. In new industries engineers are building connections with technology and new areas.

Towards a European or Even a Global Higher Education Area?

The challenges for higher education, including engineering education, are increasingly global and so is the labor market for educated professionals. German, French, Italian and British Ministers of Education signed so called Sorbonne declaration 25th May in 1998. With the declaration Ministers wanted to highlight that Europe must build and strengthen not only its economic dimension, but also its intellectual dimension: "Europe of knowledge". Diversification of courses of professional careers and obligation for lifelong learning were mentioned as examples of "a major change period in education and working conditions that Europe is heading to".

The aim of the declaration was to promote the harmonization of the architecture of the European higher education system in order to create "A European Area for Higher Education". This was seen to improve the external recognition and to facilitate student mobility and employability. As a continuation to Sorbonne declaration, 30 European countries, not all of them current members of the EU, signed the Bologna declaration 19^th June 1999. In the Bologna declaration the general principles that were agreed in Sorbonne were clarified. The time frame for the declaration’s objectives to be reached is by the year 2010.

Some of the goals seem to be contradictory. At the same time the declaration acknowledges divergent cultures and languages of member countries, emphasizes innovation, creativity and cultural appreciation. Yet, the aim is to enhance convergence and harmonization of educational systems, and the development seems to be heading towards European wide accreditation and standards for education.

There are a lot of open issues still related to the so-called Sorbonne-Bologna process. What does it mean for the development of the Finnish tertiary level education in practice? What is the level of harmonization, and for example what kind of pressure the process puts on the development of the Finnish engineering education? If working markets for educated professionals will in future be increasingly global, will there be also a global higher education area?

No matter what will be the case concerning the Sorbonne-Bologna process, the most important issue in developing competitiveness of the Finnish engineering education is not through harmonizing it with other engineering education systems in Europe, but to strengthen its existing strengths and developing new ones.

Conclusions

The environment for higher education is changing globally. Some countries for example Austria, France and Japan, are in the middle of transformation process of their traditional educational systems. Deregulation, privatization and emergent innovative organizational structures are created, implemented worldwide. There are new private universities, new institutions, increasing amount of corporate universities, university networks etc. Motivations for transformation of traditional structures are common inability of bureaucratic structures to change and interact with surrounding society. The inefficient organizational structures waste scarce resources. Rigid structures for curricula, organizations, reward systems etc. have created isolated silos that impede interaction within the system, and do not encourage to the co-operation with external stakeholders.

The FuturEng project is continuing the co-operation of stakeholders in Finnish engineering education system. These stakeholders are not willing to passively follow what is happening to engineering education in Europe and globally, and then adapt to changing environment. The chosen role is far more active. The aim is to negotiate with the future of Finnish engineering education system so that also national aspects and characteristics could be taken into consideration during the evident transformation process. All stakeholders are participating in interactive research process to create common understanding of desired, possible and threatening future scenarios for year 2015. The co-operation includes workshops with students, faculty, alumni, industry, Delphi interviews with experts (education experts, industry leaders, politicians government representatives). The steering group with members from all stakeholder groups is actively participating in the research process.

The following issues will be discussed and negotiated during this three project