Changes in the Field of Civil Engineering - Essay Example

?Changes in the Field of Civil Engineering Civil engineering is one of the fields that have undergone many significant changes over the years according to Arciszewski and Russell (5). Globalization, the computer evolution, population demand, scientific advancements as well as the growing concern for environmental and security in the field of material science, biotechnology, and nanotechnology are the key drivers of the changes. As the changes continue to emerge, students need to adapt, adjust and conform to the changes by acquiring more knowledge about the field that they otherwise would in the past. The adjustments need not only to be in the traditional sciences and math, but also to encompass emerging domains in engineering and science and knowledge in crucial areas such as leadership, communication, marketing, business management, and practical processes. In addition, students must be able to learn how to come up with innovative designs that are required for maintaining and enhancing the competitive advantage with respect to other nations, and be able to prepare adequately to accomplish emerging professional challenges. Therefore, there is an urgent need to expand and improve civil engineering education (CEE), including professional innovators such as civil engineers with skills and knowledge required to develop novel designs, which can be patented. Over the past six decades, the United States has witnessed a significant reduction in the number of credit hours required for a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. In fact, at present, America’s average hours stands at about 125 credit hours only (Arciszewski and Russell 5). This is a huge reduction considering the fact that just decade ago, the U.S. average credit hours for a bachelor’s degree in engineering took an average of 135 hours. This emerging trend is, particularly driven by state funded universities, which are increasingly heeding to political pressure to reduce the cost incurred in undergraduate education, as well as to ensure that civil engineering students graduate in four years. It is also unfortunate that even private universities are increasingly adopting this trend in a bid to remain competitive. Presently, civil engineering education in the country is struggling with the blatant contradiction between the national, state, and local level needs, according to Arciszewski and Russell (5). The aim of this report is to explore the changes that are occurring in the rhetorical practices in the field of civil engineering. The field of civil engineering has undergone many changes over the years. This has seen most paradigms being replaced by the emerging concepts. As earlier stated, the changes that have occurred in the field of civil engineering are attributed mainly to the rapid technological advancements and globalization being witnessed in different parts of the world today. This has necessitated students to adjust in their learning in order to keep pace with the changing needs of the world in the field of civil engineering. According to Arciszewski and Russell, the engineering system evolution is driven by objective evolutionary techniques, known as patterns of evolution (8). They argue that this pattern applies to all engineering fields, including CEE and practice. Many studies that dates back to the 1940s found nine patterns of evolution in the field of engineering. However, the S-curve pattern is the most relevant in CEE. According to the S-curve pattern, engineering systems have undergone transformations following an S-curve pattern, when the relationship between time and specific characteristics of an engineering system are both taken into consideration. This implies that each engineering system has a life cycle that once completed give rise to another system based on different assumptions or different paradigm, as shown in figure 1. For example, when we consider airplanes, we realize that there are separate S-curves for propeller-driven airplanes, jet planes, and turbo-propeller planes. In this regard, we end up with a family of S-curves. civil engineering system Maturity Decline Growth Time Figure 1. In the area of civil engineering education, two paradigms emerge with each having its own separate S-curve when the success of engineering profession is taken into consideration and measured by the salaries, prestige, and effectiveness. For instance, until about a century ago, CEE was based on the ‘master-apprentice paradigm.” According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (13), many centuries ago, educating engineers were considered more of an art than science. As such, teaching involved a combination of rote learning, which involved memorization of heuristics and well-known facts. In addition, acquisition of skills and knowledge in the field of civil engineering was based on learning by example and hands-on experience. For instance, an apprentice would come up with an abductively new hypothesis, indicating his or her recent experience and inductively prove then by demonstrating through example and experience. In so doing, an apprentice would not only acquire new skills and knowledge, but would also learn how to abductively come up with a hypothesis or conduct an induction. This also gave apprentice new ideas concerning engineering. Even though this model of education produced not only great civil engineers, but also great leaders and investors, the technique was time consuming and costly. In addition, it only produced limited number of engineers (American Society of Civil Engineers 15). At the end of nineteenth century, a huge development was witnessed in science, especially in the field of mathematics and physics, which significantly changed the dynamics of civil engineering education. This saw the teaching of engineering change from being considered an art to science, with emphasis being put on scientific or the mathematical basis of engineering. This resulted in the emergence of a ‘scientific paradigm’, which largely changed engineering education. As a result, instead of building a holistic knowhow of engineering based on heuristics, as before, the emphasis changed to acquiring formal knowledge and skills. This saw the deduction, which is a process used for driving the outcomes of what is assumed, emerge as the main form of reasoning at the abduction expense (American Society of Civil Engineers 16). Abduction, in this case, made it possible for engineers to be able to verify a given hypothesis concerning the existing knowledge. However, deduction could not be used in developing a new hypothesis. As a result, engineers trained in deductions only became good followers, who focused mostly on accomplishing the existing rules and regulations of the practice, but could not lead or come up with new ideas that are vital to innovation a progress (Arciszewski and Russell 8). However, in today’s field of civil engineering, education is focused mainly on analysis, numerical optimality, and building quantitative understanding, just as in science. The analysis, in this regard, is mainly based on deduction paradigm. Arciszewski and Russell reported that civil engineering knowledge is still holistic to some extent (9). This is not withstanding the fact that it has been supplemented by mathematics and physics-based theories over the years. In fact, we are very proud today that civil engineering has become a science. Nonetheless, we are also paying a painful price of this development due to the loss of creativity that it has come with, coupled with the too much focus on quantitative aspects of the civil engineering profession. In fact, this dramatic shift in engineering from being an art to science has largely to blame for the loss of leadership and large of adequate knowledge among civil engineers to deal with the complex challenges of the 21st century. The scientific paradigm employed in today’s civil engineering education is just insufficient. Therefore, the model needs to be carefully examined and if possible replaced by a new model that preserves its notable advantages, but also provide skills, knowledge, and styles needed for the 21st century engineering. In fact, based on the S-curve evolution pattern, the present evolution of CEE has reached a period of decline, which requires serious and urgent paradigmatic change. It is predicted that the future of civil engineering will emphasize on creating problem solving (American Society of Civil Engineers 19). Therefore, curriculum developers should consider introducing practical problem solving in the field of civil engineering education in order for the country to produce engineers that are knowledgeable and can compete with engineers from the other emerging economies. In addition, students must also change their mindsets and begin embracing practical problem solving in engineering since this is what the future holds. In an interviewed I conducted with an Engineering professor, the professor confessed that the field of engineering is experiencing many changes. However, he was worried that the nothing much is being done to ensure that graduates are taught the necessary skill in line with the needs of the 21st century. The professor pointed out that civil engineering education today does fails to focus on creativity. Instead, it focuses on the qualitative aspects, which are becoming antiquated. The professor concluded by advising that the CEE curriculum needs to be changed to emphasis on creativity, and practicality, as opposed to theoretical aspects. This will help the students acquire the knowledge needed for the 21st century engineering. Works Cited American Society of Civil Engineers. Civil engineering body of knowledge for the 21st century, preparing the civil engineer for the future, (2nd ed.). 2008, 12-34. Print. Arciszewski, Tomasz, and Catherine Harrison. ”Successful civil engineering education.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 136(1), 2010, 1–13. Print. Read More