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.