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.