-
49
Bridging Engineering and Technology Education
Prof. Megat Johari Megat Mohd NoorProfessor & Dean of
Malaysia Japan International
Institute of Technology, Universiti Teknology
Malaysia
Introduction
Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) or Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) education has been the focus of interest in almost all
nations that are progressing or aspiring
towards modernizing or leading in the advancement of technology
and increasing innovative prowess.
The close interactions between these disciplines are indeed
essential for the sustainable growth of a
nation. Engineering is regarded as a profession for wealth
creation and bettering the life of mankind,
through advancing the technology frontiers, just as science is
pushing the frontier of knowledge.
Mathematics on the other hand is said to be the language of
engineers.
Engineering has evolved from a vocation of practical and
empirical approach with strong craftsmanship
and apprenticeship to theoretical and scientific approach
presently. It has gone beyond the knowledge
of specification of standards. Such an evolution, which is
expected with the expanding domain of
engineering knowledge, creates some ripples as to who can be
considered as engineers, and how would
their education be formulated. Vocations as technologists or
engineering technologists are also currently
being propagated, though even the industry at times is confused
with these terminologies.
Differentiation between engineers and technicians are relatively
clearly understood by many but the
vocation, technologists or engineering technologists that is
supposed to bridge the two vocations, do create
Pers
pect
ives
on
-
50
the misunderstanding. Should these vocations (engineers,
technologists or engineering technologists) be
considered as one of the same (as engineers) or they are
different or possibly complementing? Is there a
need for any articulation pathway between them, at the education
and/or vocation levels?
Should engineering education, within the limited duration of
study of four to five years, be adequate to
address the whole spectrum of engineering and technology? What
exactly is the appropriate interaction
between the two domains, engineering and technology, to produce
engineers then? Would the balance in
engineering education be offset by the demand of key skills or
human skills?
Definitions
According to Encyclopedia Britannica:
Engineering is the application of science to the optimum
conversion of the resources of
nature to the uses of humankind.
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines:
Technology is the application of knowledge to the practical aims
of human life or to changing
and manipulating the human environment. It focuses on making
things happen.
The ultimate aim and the source of knowledge are relatively
similar, but the depth of knowledge required
may differ. ABET Inc., a United States based accrediting body,
propagates the distinction between
engineering and engineering technology as follows:
Engineering is the profession in which knowledge of the
mathematical and natural sciences
gained by study, experience, and practices are applied with
judgment to develop ways to
utilize economically the materials and forces of nature for the
benefit of mankind.
Engineering Technology is the part of the technological field
that requires the application of
scientific and engineering knowledge and methods combined with
technical skills in support
of engineering activities; it lies in the occupational spectrum
between the craftsman and the
engineer at the end of the spectrum closest to the engineer.
Engineering and Technology Domains
Both the engineering and engineering technology domains are
within the spectrum of the engineering
team; technicians, engineering technologists and engineers, as
shown in Figure 1. Despite the distinction,
-
51
ABET Inc. specifies engineering technologists as closer to the
engineers. Thus, one may expect that an
engineer typically would be able to undertake the work of a
technologist but a technologist would need
further learning to be able to undertake the work of an
engineer. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the
close approximate of the over-lappings between the three
vocations of the engineering team. In some
countries or regions both the vocations, engineers and
engineering technologists are considered one,
i.e., as engineers, with no distinction made between practice
oriented and theoretical approach, despite
having different education pathways between them.
Figure 1: The Engineering Team Spectrum
Figure 2: Schematic diagram showing the over-lappings of the
vocations within the
engineering team
Although the engineering team is within a common spectrum, the
boundary between each domain is
without clear distinctions. There are possibilities for an
engineering education programme to stray
into the technician or engineering technology domain. Usually it
happens when the providers are not
exercising control but succumb to the demand of the industry.
Educational objectives are compromised
and a programme is then classified as practice oriented or even
skilled oriented, despite the original
intention is to produce engineers.
A study sponsored by Universiti Kuala Lumpur in 2009, entitled
Engineering Team The Future:
2
Technology is the application of knowledge to the practical aims
of human life or to changing and manipulating the human
environment. It focuses on making things happen.
The ultimate aim and the source of knowledge are relatively
similar, but the depth of knowledge required may differ. ABET Inc.,
a United States based accrediting body, propagates the distinction
between engineering and engineering technology as follows:
Engineering is the profession in which knowledge of the
mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and
practices are applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize
economically the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of
mankind.
Engineering Technology is the part of the technological field
that requires the application of scientific and engineering
knowledge and methods combined with technical skills in support of
engineering activities; it lies in the occupational spectrum
between the craftsman and the engineer at the end of the spectrum
closest to the engineer.
Engineering and Technology Domains Both the engineering and
engineering technology domains are within the spectrum of the
engineering team; technicians, engineering technologists and
engineers, as shown in Figure 1. Despite the distinction, ABET Inc.
specifies engineering technologists as closer to the engineers.
Thus, one may expect that an engineer typically would be able to
undertake the work of a technologist but a technologist would need
further learning to be able to undertake the work of an engineer.
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the close approximate of the
over-lappings between the three vocations of the engineering team.
In some countries or regions both the vocations, engineers and
engineering technologists are considered one, i.e., as engineers,
with no distinction made between practice oriented and theoretical
approach, despite having different education pathways between
them.
Figure 1: The Engineering Team Spectrum
Technicians - Skilled based Engineering Technologists - Practice
based Engineers - Theory based
-
52
Role of Engineering Technologist, confirmed the confusion in
terminologies among the industry
players as to the role of engineers; practice oriented and
theoretical engineers are seen as one, but the
majority prefers the engineers who are practice oriented. This
is highly expected, as the respondents
that participated in the study were carefully chosen from the
manufacturing sectors in Malaysia;
which indeed majority of the sector is known for requiring the
skills and competencies of engineering
technologists, but recognizing them as engineers. This
phenomenon is not only unique to Malaysia, but
even happening to the industrialized nations. In some of these
countries (e.g. United Kingdom, United
States of America and Australia), despite the professional
bodies demarcating clearly the domain of
the vocations, majority of the industry is still oblivious of
the changes, and possibly seen purely as
an academic exercise. Industry is satisfied as long as they
continue to receive the supply of graduates
appropriate to their needs. The study noted the decline in
interest in engineering technology in countries
like United Kingdom, United States of America and Australia, but
strong commitment to pursue both
in Europe.
In Europe generally, the pathway for practice oriented engineers
exists in tandem with that of the
theoretical engineers, and the industry selects on the basis of
needs. Not that the differentiation does
not exist, but it is an accepted norm that both exist side by
side. In fact in Germany the pathways of
differentiation even began relatively at the early years of
schooling. In Asia efforts to differentiate,
especially under the International Engineering Alliances group
of education accords, are on course.
Malaysia, for example had began debating about Engineers and
Engineering Technologists back in
the early 2000s. The country was producing only engineers then,
but the Government recognized the
missing gap of the practice oriented engineers within the
workforce, for Malaysia to be an industrialized
nation. The gap was all the while filled up by engineers. The
demarcation however has a significant
effect on the perception of public. One is seen lesser than the
other.
The young generation always has high aspirations on the
vocations of choice, i.e., to be engineers,
architects, doctors etc., but not those of the supporting
vocations. Apprenticeship has given way to
formal education due to democratization of knowledge. Access to
higher education is the norm rather
than an exception nowadays. Industry is deprived of skilled
workers as the exodus is towards knowledge
based white collared jobs. Thus it is expectedly of industry to
require more skilled based engineering
graduates. In some countries engineering graduates are more
employable after taking the skilled
certificates.
-
53
Engineering Qualifications Framework
The engineering qualification framework has evolved in many
countries to accommodate the skilled
based education pathway, known as Technical and Vocational
Education and Training (TVET). A typical
engineering qualification framework with articulation pathways
is shown in Figure 3. The framework
may differ with respect to the articulation pathway and also
subject to the requirements of regulating
professional bodies. As an example, the Malaysian regulating
professional body, Board of Engineers
Malaysia (BEM), specifies the equivalent of the A levels of the
United Kingdom as the minimum intake
qualification for bachelor of engineering programmes. Thus,
those with skilled based route would find
difficulty to articulate into engineering unlike articulation
into engineering technology. The Malaysian
engineering qualification framework has however evolved to
include engineering technology, when the
Board of Engineers Malaysia decided to register engineering
technology graduates beginning 2012.
This would later be followed with the technician stream.
Figure 3: A typical higher education qualification framework
It is an interesting point to ponder on the path of evolution
the qualification framework would take.
There have been numerous initiatives at the regional and
national levels to set standards or best practices
for engineering and technology education. For most countries
this would be under the purview of the
Ministry of Education or Ministry of Higher Education. In some
countries they are led by the regulatory
or professional bodies.
4
Engineering Qualifications Framework The engineering
qualification framework has evolved in many countries to
accommodate the skilled based education pathway, known as Technical
and Vocational Education and Training (TVET). A typical engineering
qualification framework with articulation pathways is shown in
Figure 3. The framework may differ with respect to the articulation
pathway and also subject to the requirements of regulating
professional bodies. As an example, the Malaysian regulating
professional body, Board of Engineers Malaysia )BEM(, specifies the
equivalent of the A levels of the United Kingdom as the minimum
intake qualification for bachelor of engineering programmes. Thus,
those with skilled based route would find difficulty to articulate
into engineering unlike articulation into engineering technology.
The Malaysian engineering qualification framework has however
evolved to include engineering technology, when the Board of
Engineers Malaysia decided to register engineering technology
graduates beginning 2012. This would later be followed with the
technician stream.
Figure 3: A typical higher education qualification framework It
is an interesting point to ponder on the path of evolution the
qualification framework would take. There have been numerous
initiatives at the regional and national levels to set standards or
best practices for engineering and technology education. For most
countries this would be under the purview of the Ministry of
Education or Ministry of Higher Education. In some countries they
are led by the regulatory or professional bodies. Liberalization
and Globalization With the dismantling of trade barriers, under the
World Trade Organization initiatives, through bilateral and
multilateral agreements that we are seeing today, the
Technical & Vocational (Skilled Based) Bachelor Degree or
Equivalency
Diploma and Certificates
Engineering Technology Bachelor, Master, Doctoral Degrees
Diploma
Engineering Bachelor, Master, Doctoral Degrees Diploma
-
54
Liberalization and Globalization
With the dismantling of trade barriers, under the World Trade
Organization initiatives, through bilateral
and multilateral agreements that we are seeing today, the
education sector is also without exception
being affected. Not only fulfilling the local requirements is
necessary, there is also the need to meet the
requirements for international mobility.
Internationalization of engineering and technology programmes
becomes inevitable, if a nation wants
to be relevant and progressing. Developed nations are seen
struggling in attracting adequate potential
local students to take up these important disciplines. The
opening up to foreign students, especially from
under-developed or developing nations, could serve as a solution
to meet the deficit, though nowadays
education has become more of a commodity in these countries.
Transnational education model has also
evolved with globalization, where countries are now opening up
off shore campuses. All these have
added a new dimension that the graduates must be relevant and
prepared to face the global challenges
and development.
A number of nations are seriously liberalizing their education
sector in order to transform into education
hubs. The cross border or transnational education with
undifferentiated approach is now a common
phenomenon. Homogenizing a host nations education policy may
well be an acrobatic balancing act
when trying to fit the different education models and
philosophies of the home countries where the
programmes come from. Liberalization of education has already
added to the tension among the local
providers of education to be competitive. Adoption of double
standards to accommodate the cross
border education in such a highly competitive market may push
the local providers to be uncompetitive.
Developing a one size fits all standards would be a tussle. It
is definitely a challenge to the accreditation
body in such countries to be governed by conflicting or
different requirements.
International Agreements
International or common standards have become a point of
interest for developed and developing nations
alike, and several initiatives at international level are
progressing well. These initiatives which started in
the eighties, such as the Washington Accord (WA) and the Bologna
Declaration, are presently playing
more significant roles. One is fuelled by the political will, as
in the Bologna Process, whereas the
-
55
other is by non-governmental professional bodies. Figure 4 shows
a schematic diagram of the selected
agreements and initiatives.
Figure 4: International Agreements on Education (with duration
of study) and Mobility
The Washington Accord is an agreement of equivalency at the
bachelors degree in 1989 that were
followed by the Sydney and Dublin accords, which address the
engineering technology and technician
qualifications respectively. These three agreements are
associated with the mobility agreements; APEC
Engineers, Engineers Mobility Forum (EMF) and Engineering
Technology Mobility Forum (ETMF).
Collectively they are known as the International Engineering
Alliance (IEA) with the secretariat based
at the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ)
in Auckland.
The European Bologna Process has eventually led to the EUR-ACE
project for the engineering
qualifications and presently sees the establishment of European
Network for Accreditation of Engineering
Education (ENAEE) that authorizes European accrediting bodies to
accord the EUR-ACE label. The
label is given to engineering degree programmes at first cycle
(bachelor) and second cycle (master)
level. It helps to facilitate mobility within the Europe.
The European system does not differentiate recognition of
practical and theoretical engineering
programmes, despite the formation periods are varied (between
three and five years). The International
Engineering Alliances accords clearly stipulate the formation
period or duration of study as a
differentiation factor; where the Washington Accord is for
programmes with four or more years duration
6
Figure 4: International Agreements on Education (with duration
of
study) and Mobility
The Washington Accord is an agreement of equivalency at the
bachelors degree in 1989 that were followed by the Sydney and
Dublin accords, which address the engineering technology and
technician qualifications respectively. These three agreements are
associated with the mobility agreements; APEC Engineers, Engineers
Mobility Forum (EMF) and Engineering Technology Mobility Forum
(ETMF). Collectively they are known as the International
Engineering Alliance (IEA) with the secretariat based at the
Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) in
Auckland. The European Bologna Process has eventually led to the
EUR-ACE project for the engineering qualifications and presently
sees the establishment of European Network for Accreditation of
Engineering Education (ENAEE) that authorizes European accrediting
bodies to accord the EUR-ACE label. The label is given to
engineering degree programmes at first cycle (bachelor) and second
cycle (master) level. It helps to facilitate mobility within the
Europe. The European system does not differentiate recognition of
practical and theoretical engineering programmes, despite the
formation periods are varied (between three and five years). The
International Engineering Alliances accords clearly stipulate the
formation period or duration of study as a differentiation factor;
where the Washington Accord is for programmes with four or more
years duration of study, and the Sydney Accord (SA) is for three or
more years. This will continue to be a subject of debate for some
years until a common point of understanding is reached. It is more
of arriving at the comfort level of acceptance between the two
agreements. Efforts are currently being made to integrate or
streamline the two agreements, despite both operating under
different principles but with a similar measure of outcomes. The
concept of the agreement has been allowing for differences in the
accreditation process but expecting the measured outcomes to
converge. These international agreements have however become the
benchmark of the standards that many nations are showing interest,
despite the slow and cautious approach in
-
56
of study, and the Sydney Accord (SA) is for three or more years.
This will continue to be a subject
of debate for some years until a common point of understanding
is reached. It is more of arriving
at the comfort level of acceptance between the two agreements.
Efforts are currently being made to
integrate or streamline the two agreements, despite both
operating under different principles but with
a similar measure of outcomes. The concept of the agreement has
been allowing for differences in the
accreditation process but expecting the measured outcomes to
converge.
These international agreements have however become the benchmark
of the standards that many nations
are showing interest, despite the slow and cautious approach in
embracing them. Some countries are wary
of what may be termed as neo-colonization through the education
sector. Geographical and language
barrier are among the influencing factors for the slow pace of
the regional or international initiatives.
The onslaught of globalization would soon see the breaking up of
such resistance and barriers. Table 1
shows a list of ever increasing number of signatories and
potential signatories of the Washington Accord.
Table 1: Signatories and Potential Signatories of Washington
Accord
Washington Accord Signatories (Year Approved)
Australia Engineers Australia (1989)
Canada Engineers Canada (1989)
Chinese Taipei Institute of Engineering Education Taiwan
(2007)
Hong Kong China The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers
(1995)
Ireland Engineers Ireland (1989)
Japan Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education
(2005)
Malaysia Board of Engineers Malaysia (2009)
New Zealand Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand
(1989)
Russia Association for Engineering Education of Russia
(2012)
Singapore Institution of Engineers Singapore (2006)
South Africa Engineering Council South Africa (1999)
South Korea Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of
Korea (2007)
Turkey MUDEK (2011)
United Kingdom Engineering Council UK (1989)
United States ABET Inc. (1989)
Washington Accord Provisional Status# & Aspiring
Countries*
Bangladesh Board of Accreditation for Engineering and Technical
Education#
Germany German Accreditation Agency for Study Programs in
Engineering and Informatics#
India National Board of Accreditation of All India Council for
Technical Education#
Pakistan Pakistan Engineering Council#
-
57
Sri Lanka Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka#
Thailand *
Philippines*
Graduate Attributes
Graduate attributes or graduate outcomes are distinctive
characteristics of a programme. However,
some of the graduate attributes may be similar with respect to
the commonality (e.g., human skills)
that exists between domains. Graduate attributes becomes are
commonly accepted as the foundation
of convergence. On one hand one is expected to be creative and
innovative to identify the graduate
attributes of a programme, the prescription as in the agreements
for common acceptance negates it, but
rather only allowing for comparison purpose. A departure from
the prescribed list would spell disaster,
thus argued the opponent of standardization. There should
however be a balance in the approach and the
outcome statements should be generic enough to allow flexibility
and yet remain within the boundary.
The Washington Accord began with being less prescriptive,
similar to ABET Inc. approach, but now
expecting signatories to address the gaps in the programme
outcomes by 2017. Similarly with the other
two accords. Accreditation bodies or signatories are expected to
have more or less the 12 keywords of the
graduate attributes. It is the beginning of true convergence
with respect to the outcomes. It incorporates
the depth of learning for varying domains, through the phrases
of complex problem, broadly defined
problem and widely defined problem.
The 12 graduate attributes of the Washington Accord (for
engineering programmes) are as shown in
Table 2, with a focus on complex problem. Notice the difference
with the Sydney Accord graduate
attributes, in Table 3, which focus on broadly defined problem
with emphasis on the practice. The
Dublin Accord (DA) attributes focus on well defined problem with
more skilled oriented, as shown
in Table 4. These three categories of attributes are expected to
be obtained within the respective time
frames. Programmes intending to expand to include the attributes
beyond their respective domain would
certainly require longer duration of study.
-
58
Table 2: Graduate Attributes of Washington Accord
Engineering
Knowledge
Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering
fundamentals and an engineering
specialization to the solution of complex engineering
problems
Problem Analysis
Identify, formulate, research literature and analyze complex
engineering problems
reaching substantiated conclusions using first principles of
mathematics, natural sciences
and engineering sciences.
Design/
development of
solutions
Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design
systems, components or
processes that meet specified needs with appropriate
consideration for public health and
safety, cultural, societal, and environmental
considerations.
Investigation
Conduct investigations of complex problems using research-based
knowledge and
research methods including design of experiments, analysis and
interpretation of data, and
synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions.
Modern Tool
Usage
Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and
modern engineering and
IT tools, including prediction and modeling, to complex
engineering activities, with an
understanding of the limitations
The Engineer and
Society
Apply reasoning informed by contextual knowledge to assess
societal, health, safety,
legal and cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities
relevant to professional
engineering practice.
Environment and
Sustainability
Understand the impact of professional engineering solutions in
societal and environmental
contexts and demonstrate knowledge of and need for sustainable
development.
EthicsApply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics
and responsibilities and norms
of engineering practice.
Individual and
Team workFunction effectively as an individual, and as a member
or leader in diverse teams and in
multi-disciplinary settings.
Communication
Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with
the engineering
community and with society at large, such as being able to
comprehend and write
effective reports and design documentation, make effective
presentations, and give and
receive clear instructions.
Project
Management and
Finance
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering and
management principles
and apply these to ones own work, as a member and leader in a
team, to manage projects
and in multidisciplinary environments.
Life long learningRecognize the need for, and have the
preparation and ability to engage in independent and
life-long learning in the broadest context of technological
change
Source: IEA, 2009
(http://www.washingtonaccord.org/IEA-Grad-Attr-Prof-Competencies-v2.pdf)
-
59
Table 3: Graduate Attributes of Sydney Accord
Engineering
Knowledge
Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering
fundamentals and an engineering
specialization to defined and applied engineering procedures,
processes, systems or
methodologies.
Problem Analysis
Identify, formulate, research literature and analyze
broadly-defined engineering problems
reaching substantiated conclusions using analytical tools
appropriate to their discipline or
area of specialization.
Design/
development of
solutions
Design solutions for broadly- defined engineering technology
problems and contribute to
the design of systems, components or processes to meet specified
needs with appropriate
consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal,
and environmental
considerations.
Investigation
Conduct investigations of broadly-defined problems; locate,
search and select relevant
data from codes, data bases and literature, design and conduct
experiments to provide
valid conclusions.
Modern Tool
Usage
Select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern
engineering and IT tools,
including prediction and modeling, to broadly-defined
engineering activities, with an
understanding of the limitations
The Engineer and
Society
Demonstrate understanding of the societal, health, safety, legal
and cultural issues and the
consequent responsibilities relevant to engineering technology
practice.
Environment and
Sustainability
Understand the impact of engineering technology solutions in
societal and environmental
context and demonstrate knowledge of and need for sustainable
development.
EthicsUnderstand and commit to professional ethics and
responsibilities and norms of
engineering technology practice.
Individual and
Team work
Function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader
in diverse technical
teams
Communication
Communicate effectively on broadly defined engineering
activities with the engineering
community and with society at large, by being able to comprehend
and write effective
reports and design documentation, make effective presentations,
and give and receive
clear instructions
Project
Management and
Finance
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering
management principles and
apply these to ones own work, as a member and leader in a team
and to manage projects
in multidisciplinary environments
Lifelong learningRecognize the need for, and have the ability to
engage in independent and lifelong
learning in specialist technologies.
Source: IEA, 2009
(http://www.washingtonaccord.org/IEA-Grad-Attr-Prof-Competencies-v2.pdf)
-
60
Table 4: Graduate Attributes of Dublin Accord
Engineering
Knowledge
Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, engineering
fundamentals and an engineering
specialization to wide practical procedures and practices
Problem AnalysisIdentify and analyze well-defined engineering
problems reaching substantiated
conclusions using codified methods of analysis specific to their
field of activity
Design/
development of
Solutions
Design solutions for well-defined technical problems and assist
with the design of
systems, components or processes to meet specified needs with
appropriate consideration
for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and
environmental
considerations.
InvestigationConduct investigations of well defined problems;
locate and search relevant codes and
catalogues, conduct standard tests and measurements.
Modern Tool
Usage
Apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering
and IT tools to well-
defined engineering activities, with an awareness of the
limitations.
The Engineer and
Society
Demonstrate knowledge of the societal, health, safety, legal and
cultural issues and the
consequent responsibilities relevant to engineering technician
practice.
Environment and
Sustainability
Understand the impact of engineering technician solutions in
societal and environmental
context and demonstrate knowledge of and need for sustainable
development.
EthicsUnderstand and commit to professional ethics and
responsibilities and norms of
technician practice.
Individual and
Team workFunction effectively as an individual, and as a member
in diverse technical teams.
Communication
Communicate effectively on well defined engineering activities
with the engineering
community and with society at large, by being able to comprehend
the work of others,
document their own work, and give and receive clear
instructions
Project
Management
and Finance
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering
management principles and
apply these to ones own work, as a member and leader in a
technical team and to manage
projects in multidisciplinary environments
Lifelong learningRecognize the need for, and have the ability to
engage in independent updating in the
context of specialized technical knowledge.
Source: IEA, 2009
(http://www.washingtonaccord.org/IEA-Grad-Attr-Prof-Competencies-v2.pdf)
-
61
The range of problem solving for the complex, broadly defined
and well defined associated
with the Washington, Sydney and Dublin accords respectively has
been expounded in the context of:
conflicting requirements, depth of analysis, depth of knowledge,
familiarity of issues, applicability of
codes, involvement of stakeholders, consequences and
interdependence. Complex problems are those
that cannot be resolved without in-depth engineering knowledge
and have some or
all of the mentioned contexts. The Sydney accord stipulates a
strong emphasis on the application of
developed technology when defining broadly defined. Table 5
shows the differentiation between the
two domains, engineering and engineering technology with regards
to the problem solving contexts
The study on Malaysian Engineering Education Model (MEEM) by the
Board of Engineers Malaysia
and the Institution of Engineers Malaysia in 2000 on the depth
of knowledge, emphasized the strong
adherence to the engineering science component (recommending up
to 50% of the total subjects related
to engineering), and insisting nothing less than 30% of the
total engineering subjects. The fundamental
principles of engineering science remain the backbone of a
theoretical engineering programme. The
applied or practice side are built on strong fundamentals that
would prepare engineering graduates as
problem solvers of tomorrows world.
-
62
Table 5: Context of problem solving between engineering and
engineering technology
Contexts Engineering Engineering Technology
Range of conflicting
requirements
Involve wide-ranging or conflict-
ing technical, engineering and other
issues
Involve a variety of factors which may
impose conflicting constraints
Depth of analysis re-
quired
Have no obvious solution and
require abstract thinking, original-
ity in analysis to formulate suitable
models
Can be solved by application of well-prov-
en analysis techniques
Depth of knowledge
required
Requires research-based knowledge
much of which is at, or informed
by, the forefront of the profes-
sional discipline and which allows a
fundamentals-based, first
principles analytical approach
Requires a detailed knowledge of principles
and applied procedures and methodolo-
gies in defined aspects of a professional
discipline with a strong emphasis on the
application of developed technology and
the attainment of know-how, often within a
multidisciplinary engineering environment
Familiarity of issues Involve infrequently encountered
issues Belong to families of familiar problems
which are solved in well-accepted ways
Extent of applicable
codes
Are outside problems encompassed
by standards and codes of practice
for
professional engineering
May be partially outside those encompassed
by standards or codes of practice
Extent of stakeholder
involvement and level of
conflicting requirements
Involve diverse groups of stakehold-
ers with widely varying needs
Involve several groups of stakeholders with
differing and occasionally conflicting needs
Consequences
Have significant consequences in a
range of contexts Have consequences which are important
locally, but may extend more widely
Interdependence
Are high level problems including
many component parts or sub-
problems
Are parts of, or systems within complex
engineering problems
Source: IEA, 2009
(http://www.washingtonaccord.org/IEA-Grad-Attr-Prof-Competencies-v2.pdf)
-
63
Curriculum Design
The spectrum of the engineering team is within itself expanding
as new knowledge and needs are
determined as essential. Engineering and technology education
has evolved to cater for these changes.
It has grown from providing technical know-how to scientific
know-why to support the growth of the
technological sector and the well-being of social, economic and
the environment. Providing specialization
at the bachelors degree level is not uncommon among the
education providers. This approach could
purely be a marketing strategy or possibly to meet the real
demand of the industry. There are cases
where the curricula are formulated around the strength and
presence of academics instead of the needs.
Providing engineering education with the view of being at the
forefront of technology is more often
misinterpreted as purely providing knowledge of the latest
development. In fact the half-life of such
knowledge may not even be within the period of the study.
The increasing spectrums cognitive, psychomotor and affective
components of each domain as a
result of expanding expectations and engineering venturing into
new territories are inevitable. Thus
the development of engineering team would be stretched from
providing skilled oriented education and
training to producing problem solvers of tomorrow. It is indeed
wide and huge tasks for any providers
to incorporate all aspects within the available formation
time.
Some providers mull about producing super-engineers who are
skilled and competent upon graduation.
Though the thoughts are indeed noble, the time limitation of the
formation process prevents such an
action to take place. Education providers must work with the
industry to facilitate such an approach. A
framework of collaboration between the providers and the
industry should be developed. The training
elements should fall mostly on the industry and the education on
the providers. There should however
be a smooth transition from education to training.
The education component of the respective domains varies; more
skilled training in technician education,
with reducing skilled immersion as we are moving towards the
engineering education end. Figure 5
shows the schematics of the generic differentiation between
engineering and technology; the extents of
the education and training, and the three components, cognitive,
psychomotor and affective.
The volume and depth of knowledge in engineering education in
general are expected to exceed that of
engineering technology. However, due to the nature of
engineering technology, which is more specialized
or having a narrow scope (due to addressing a particular
industry), the depth of knowledge may reach
the equivalence of engineering. The practice oriented
engineering technology does not require deriving
from first principles but suffice with the ability to apply the
principles in the practice.
-
64
Figure 5: Differentiating engineering and engineering technology
education and training
Figure 6 shows the schematics of work scope or inclination of
both engineering and engineering
technology, in relation to the education background. Engineering
graduates would generally be inclined
to work in the design and research sectors, whereas engineering
technology graduates would be
appropriate to work as supervisors or in the operation and
maintenance area. Having a strong scientific
background in engineering education is crucial, as engineers are
expected to push the technological
frontier. Strong foundation in mathematics and engineering
sciences and in depth study across the
professional or applied subjects is the model of an engineering
curriculum. Engineers are expected to go
beyond the scope of codes and standards and routine analysis.
Engineers are expected to solve problems
of tomorrow.
The German and the French models emphasize on having a strong
scientific background. Similarly, the
Japanese engineering education infuses the scientific components
within the engineering curriculum at
the bachelors level with the seamless connection to graduate
study, expecting many of the graduates
would continue their study at graduate level. Leading edge
industries are known to be interested in these
kinds of graduates. The expectation of industry has somehow
pushed the education sector to reconsider
the duration of study. Industry not only requires the strong
technical competencies, but also the ability
to innovate and create, as well as appropriate human skills.
Europe has always in the past, pride with the Diplome Ingenieur
programme of four to five years duration
of study, either for engineering or engineering technology
(although it is only known as engineering)
discipline. Europe continues to be the powerhouse of engineering
forging by Germany and France.
Japan on the other hand was able to transform the technological
sector with its innovative approach and
strong scientific background of the engineering programmes.
Until the economy of scale in producing
12
Figure 5: Differentiating engineering and engineering technology
education and
training Figure 6 shows the schematics of work scope or
inclination of both engineering and engineering technology, in
relation to the education background. Engineering graduates would
generally be inclined to work in the design and research sectors,
whereas engineering technology graduates would be appropriate to
work as supervisors or in the operation and maintenance area.
Having a strong scientific background in engineering education is
crucial, as engineers are expected to push the technological
frontier. Strong foundation in mathematics and engineering sciences
and in depth study across the professional or applied subjects is
the model of an engineering curriculum. Engineers are expected to
go beyond the scope of codes and standards and routine analysis.
Engineers are expected to solve problems of tomorrow. The German
and the French models emphasize on having a strong scientific
background. Similarly, the Japanese engineering education infuses
the scientific components within the engineering curriculum at the
bachelors level with the seamless connection to graduate study,
expecting many of the graduates would continue their study at
graduate level. Leading edge industries are known to be interested
in these kinds of graduates. The expectation of industry has
somehow pushed the education sector to reconsider the duration of
study. Industry not only requires the strong technical
competencies, but also the ability to innovate and create, as well
as appropriate human skills. Europe has always in the past, pride
with the Diplome Ingenieur programme of four to five years duration
of study, either for engineering or engineering technology
(although it is only known as engineering) discipline. Europe
continues to be the powerhouse of engineering forging by Germany
and France. Japan on the other hand was able to transform the
technological sector with its innovative approach and strong
scientific background of the engineering programmes. Until the
economy of scale in producing engineers is reached, both sectors,
the education and industry, will have to work together to provide a
seamless transition into the workplace.
-
65
engineers is reached, both sectors, the education and industry,
will have to work together to provide a
seamless transition into the workplace.
Figure 6: Schematics of education and career pathways
On the other hand the engineering technology sectors do not
require an all rounded engineer, as
the scope of work is rather limited or narrow. The burden of
packing the education components in
engineering technology is thus relieved. Engineering
technologists are expected to lead in the more
routine engineering job; project management, supervisory,
production, quality, or highly specific to the
demand of operation and maintenance. These are the areas where
engineers are also currently being
employed. It is not that engineers are not appropriate for these
kinds of jobs, but the education objective
in engineering expects more the engineers. In fact the
engineering technology education only has to
focus on the present or mundane needs of the engineering and
technology sector. Thus the duration
of study in engineering technology education could well be less
than that required for engineering
education. However, this does not mean that engineering
technology must provide a similar duration of
study. The demand of specialized area of engineering technology
associated with the fast moving and
leading edge technology, would demand a longer duration to
prepare the graduates.
Which of the curricula is superior? It is a common question and
especially among the young generation
and potential students. Even parents are concerned about a
perception that engineering technology
curriculum is less superior to the engineering curriculum. This
debate will never end in so long as
13
Figure 6: Schematics of education and career pathways
On the other hand the engineering technology sectors do not
require an all rounded engineer, as the scope of work is rather
limited or narrow. The burden of packing the education components
in engineering technology is thus relieved. Engineering
technologists are expected to lead in the more routine engineering
job; project management, supervisory, production, quality, or
highly specific to the demand of operation and maintenance. These
are the areas where engineers are also currently being employed. It
is not that engineers are not appropriate for these kinds of jobs,
but the education objective in engineering expects more the
engineers. In fact the engineering technology education only has to
focus on the present or mundane needs of the engineering and
technology sector. Thus the duration of study in engineering
technology education could well be less than that required for
engineering education. However, this does not mean that engineering
technology must provide a similar duration of study. The demand of
specialized area of engineering technology associated with the fast
moving and leading edge technology, would demand a longer duration
to prepare the graduates. Which of the curricula is superior? It is
a common question and especially among the young generation and
potential students. Even parents are concerned about a perception
that engineering technology curriculum is less superior to the
engineering curriculum. This debate will never end in so long as
perception rules the day. Despite the needs of the industry, the
public perception is difficult to change. As an example, the
agricultural sector will always be seen as a notch lower than the
manufacturing sector, as the manufacturing sector is considered as
the indicator of industrialization of a nation. No matter that the
agricultural sector is a strategic sector of a nation with regard
to food security. The other question is whether all discipline of
engineering would require engineering technologists? The biggest
industry would be those in the manufacturing and the production
sectors. In Malaysia the dilemma is that the government sectors
employment schemes is a reference to acceptance of equivalency. The
engineering technology is seen as appropriate for the industry
sector and not that of the government, thus there is no
-
66
perception rules the day. Despite the needs of the industry, the
public perception is difficult to change. As
an example, the agricultural sector will always be seen as a
notch lower than the manufacturing sector,
as the manufacturing sector is considered as the indicator of
industrialization of a nation. No matter that
the agricultural sector is a strategic sector of a nation with
regard to food security. The other question
is whether all discipline of engineering would require
engineering technologists? The biggest industry
would be those in the manufacturing and the production
sectors.
In Malaysia the dilemma is that the government sectors
employment schemes is a reference to
acceptance of equivalency. The engineering technology is seen as
appropriate for the industry sector
and not that of the government, thus there is no scheme (not
even placing them within the engineering
scheme) initiated. Without the recognition through a scheme,
unlike that of engineers and architects, the
engineering technology domain is thus not accorded its due
status. The move by the Board of Engineers
Malaysia to register engineering technologists within its rank
is a signal of acceptance.
A rather compromised stand would be that both the engineering
and engineering technology domains
are complementing each other, as in general industry needs the
whole engineering team to function.
Duration or period of study would become relevant to accord a
similar status between the complementing
Who is leading depends on the departments that they are assigned
to. Naturally, in the operation and
maintenance departments the appropriate person would be the
engineering technologists. The design
department would need the engineers. Both parties will have to
work together as engineering has to
function in multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary modes.
The requirements of depth of scientific and engineering
knowledge may differ between both domains
due to functions, but the requirements of key skills or human
skills would not differ. It is only the
contextual aspects of the human skills that may differ. The
psychomotor skills as stated earlier would
also differ, but care must be taken especially with engineering
technology that it should not dilute its
practice content with technical skills for technicians.
Similarly engineering should not be too practice
oriented such that the compromising the strength of scientific
background. Off course, engineering must
not aloof from the practice either to an extent that it becomes
a science degree. The motivation in all
domains within the engineering spectrum could well be drilled to
the experiential learning and adequate
exposure to the domains disciplines.
In Japan the human skills, also known as the ningen ryoku, is an
essential element in engineering
education, covering the attitude and general knowledge (liberal
arts) that is expected to form a holistic
-
67
person. In Islam tertiary education is not merely imparting the
material knowledge but it is with the
ultimate aim of producing a good man. A good man is one with
ethical values and concerned for
mankind and the environment. Thus the engineering teams
education has to also focus on building and
inculcating the right attitude and culture, which is what
normally termed as a balanced curriculum.
Figure 7: Schematics of engineering and engineering technology
curriculum with differentiating
requirements on mathematics at entry level
Figure 7 shows the generic differentiation between engineering
and engineering technology programmes,
related to mathematics, engineering sciences, professional
subjects and key skills. The volume of
knowledge is shown as smaller with regards to engineering
technology as compared with engineering.
Overall the practice content is higher in engineering
technology. It is expected that engineering technology
education will have to embark on longer industrial attachment or
internship, thus gaining skills that
are immediately applicable to the industry needs. The learning
mode would be mostly project based
and greater hands-on or practice oriented, unlike that of
engineering where theoretical soundness is
expected and is reinforced by experimental work.
The research oriented engineering curriculum should also provide
the experiential learning and preferably
project based, with exposure to the engineering environment. The
percentages given in Figure 7 denote
the flexibility where a programme may vary in the approach of
delivering the subject matter. It should
15
Figure 7: Schematics of engineering and engineering technology
curriculum with
differentiating requirements on mathematics at entry level
Figure 7 shows the generic differentiation between engineering and
engineering technology programmes, related to mathematics,
engineering sciences, professional subjects and key skills. The
volume of knowledge is shown as smaller with regards to engineering
technology as compared with engineering. Overall the practice
content is higher in engineering technology. It is expected that
engineering technology education will have to embark on longer
industrial attachment or internship, thus gaining skills that are
immediately applicable to the industry needs. The learning mode
would be mostly project based and greater hands-on or practice
oriented, unlike that of engineering where theoretical soundness is
expected and is reinforced by experimental work. The research
oriented engineering curriculum should also provide the
experiential learning and preferably project based, with exposure
to the engineering environment. The percentages given in Figure 7
denote the flexibility where a programme may vary in the approach
of delivering the subject matter. It should be noticed that there
is the equal emphasis for both engineering and engineering
technology programmes on the key skills or human skills. The
variation is mostly in the depth of mathematics, engineering
sciences and the professional subjects. The depth of engineering
and engineering curriculum differs but the breadth would be
similar. Curriculum design must always take the top-down approach.
It should reflect on the job that graduates will be employed, often
known as programmes objectives. The curriculum design should then
look at the required outcomes that a particular disciplines
competencies would require, and develop the list of expected
outcomes. Previous Tables, 2, 3 and 4 would make a good reference
to ensure none of the important outcomes are left out. The subject
matter should then be developed around the outcomes, ensuring that
the outcomes are demonstrable.
-
68
be noticed that there is the equal emphasis for both engineering
and engineering technology programmes
on the key skills or human skills. The variation is mostly in
the depth of mathematics, engineering
sciences and the professional subjects. The depth of engineering
and engineering curriculum differs but
the breadth would be similar.
Curriculum design must always take the top-down approach. It
should reflect on the job that graduates
will be employed, often known as programmes objectives. The
curriculum design should then look at
the required outcomes that a particular disciplines competencies
would require, and develop the list
of expected outcomes. Previous Tables, 2, 3 and 4 would make a
good reference to ensure none of the
important outcomes are left out. The subject matter should then
be developed around the outcomes,
ensuring that the outcomes are demonstrable.
Choosing to extend beyond ones domain would thus see the
increased scope to cover and lead to
unrealistic curriculum design. The subjects matter can be
regrouped into three categories; knowledge,
skills and affective. Figure 8 shows a few of the possible
models for a bachelors programme that can be
adopted. Throughout the study period the emphasis on the three
components may be different, for e.g.,
Model A gives equal emphasis all throughout the study,
reinforcing equally at each year. The 30% limit
to skills and affective is to remind curriculum designers from
straying away from the focus of the design;
producing an engineering curriculum. Similar approach should be
done for engineering technology and
technician curriculum. Off course the 30% limit should be
exceeded by virtue both are practice and
skilled oriented respectively.
Figure 8: Selected models for bachelor of engineering programme
with regards to the emphasis
of the knowledge (k), skills (s) and affective (a) components
throughout a four year programme.
16
Choosing to extend beyond ones domain would thus see the
increased scope to cover and lead to unrealistic curriculum design.
The subjects matter can be regrouped into three categories;
knowledge, skills and affective. Figure 8 shows a few of the
possible models for a bachelors programme that can be adopted.
Throughout the study period the emphasis on the three components
may be different, for e.g., Model A gives equal emphasis all
throughout the study, reinforcing equally at each year. The 30%
limit to skills and affective is to remind curriculum designers
from straying away from the focus of the design; producing an
engineering curriculum. Similar approach should be done for
engineering technology and technician curriculum. Off course the
30% limit should be exceeded by virtue both are practice and
skilled oriented respectively.
Figure 8: Selected models for bachelor of engineering programme
with regards
to the emphasis of the knowledge (k), skills (s) and affective
(a) components throughout a four year programme.
Way Forward The complementing analogy like man and woman, the
same status is accorded but having different functions and
abilities. The very nature of closeness between engineering and
engineering technology, will continue to plague the education
sector searching for a distinct model. In the world of exceptions,
one cannot provide a one size fits all, and education must be
design to fit the requirements. The categorization between
engineering and engineering technology is adding to the perception
of superiority between the two. The education pathway leading to
the engineering programme is not helping either, as the
requirements are less stringent. If one reflects on the needs of
industry, remuneration packages for engineering technology and the
professional pathways, surely the dichotomy does not exist with
regards to employment. Figure 9 shows a typical pathway of the
engineering team. All the three domains are equally important for
the development of a nation. However, each domain leads to its own
professional status; professional engineers, professional
engineering technologists and professional engineering technicians.
The recognition is not only at the national or regional level but
also at the international level, such as that under the
-
69
Way Forward
The complementing analogy like man and woman, the same status is
accorded but having different
functions and abilities. The very nature of closeness between
engineering and engineering technology,
will continue to plague the education sector searching for a
distinct model. In the world of exceptions,
one cannot provide a one size fits all, and education must be
design to fit the requirements.
The categorization between engineering and engineering
technology is adding to the perception of
superiority between the two. The education pathway leading to
the engineering programme is not helping
either, as the requirements are less stringent. If one reflects
on the needs of industry, remuneration
packages for engineering technology and the professional
pathways, surely the dichotomy does not exist
with regards to employment.
Figure 9 shows a typical pathway of the engineering team. All
the three domains are equally important
for the development of a nation. However, each domain leads to
its own professional status; professional
engineers, professional engineering technologists and
professional engineering technicians. The
17
International Engineering Alliance; Engineers Mobility Forum and
APEC Engineers, and Engineering Technology Mobility Forum.
Figure 9: The pathways for the engineering team Each
professional system has its own evaluation for professional
recognition. Many of the professional societies place the
engineering team under one, allowing any one from any domains to be
at the helm of the society. This is to show that at the employment
or professional level, there is no differentiation with regards to
acceptance. Inferiority complex is self-inflicted that strengthens
the perception of the different status existing between the two
domains, engineering and engineering technology. Within the
engineering team usually there is the articulation pathway, as
shown in Figure 9. This is to show the closeness of the engineering
team, but acknowledging that the knowledge components are different
with respect to depth generally. Concluding Remarks Engineering and
technology is within the same spectrum of the engineering team. The
seamless interaction between engineering, engineering technology
and engineering technician complicates the expectations a provider
of education needs to adhere. Balancing the curriculum is indeed a
requirement but venturing out of the domain of focus (at the demand
of industry) would lead to unwarranted compromised or
BEng: Bachelor of Engineering BEngTech: Bachelor of Engineering
Technology Cert/Dip: Certificate/Diploma MSc: Master of Science YR:
year of study or training PAE: Professional Assessment Evaluation
PEng: Professional Engineer PEngT: Professional Engineering
Technologist PTEng: Professional Engineering Technician
-
70
recognition is not only at the national or regional level but
also at the international level, such as that
under the International Engineering Alliance; Engineers Mobility
Forum and APEC Engineers, and
Engineering Technology Mobility Forum.
Figure 9: The pathways for the engineering team
Each professional system has its own evaluation for professional
recognition. Many of the professional
societies place the engineering team under one, allowing any one
from any domains to be at the helm of
the society. This is to show that at the employment or
professional level, there is no differentiation with
regards to acceptance. Inferiority complex is self-inflicted
that strengthens the perception of the different
status existing between the two domains, engineering and
engineering technology.
Within the engineering team usually there is the articulation
pathway, as shown in Figure 9. This is to
show the closeness of the engineering team, but acknowledging
that the knowledge components are
different with respect to depth generally.
Concluding Remarks
Engineering and technology is within the same spectrum of the
engineering team. The seamless interaction
between engineering, engineering technology and engineering
technician complicates the expectations a
provider of education needs to adhere. Balancing the curriculum
is indeed a requirement but venturing
out of the domain of focus (at the demand of industry) would
lead to unwarranted compromised or
extending the period of study. The already packed curriculum to
include the knowledge, skills and
affective components has demanded stretching the period of
study; such as the Melbourne model and
the Bologna Process. Nevertheless education providers must
provide the necessary breadth and depth
of knowledge; appropriate to the demand of industry and ensuring
continual growth of nations breaking
through the technology boundary and sustaining it. The
perception of superiority is a mirage but the
reality is what is testified by the existence of professional
status of engineering, engineering technology
and engineering technician competencies at the world level.
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to Professor Abang Abdullah Abang Ali of
Universiti Putra Malaysia for his
continuous guidance and support towards the involvement of the
author in the field of engineering
education. The ideas and opinions reflected in the write up are
culminations of many discourses,
seminars, workshops and studies undertaken with the guidance of
Prof Abang Abdullah.