Wankat & Oreovicz - Teaching Engineering Episode 3 docx

CHAPTER 4: COURSES: OBJECTIVES AND TEXTBOOKS 61 Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz ABET’s policy is to accredit individual engineering or technology programs, not an entire school. It is not unusual to have both accredited and unaccredited programs at the same university. The unaccredited programs are not necessarily poorer; instead, they may represent innovative programs that do not fit within ABET’s constraints. The ABET criteria are delineated in an ABET publication (ABET, 1989) and summarized in Table 4-2. These are minimum requirements, and individual engineering disciplines may impose additional requirements. The mathematical studies must include differential and integral calculus and differential equations. The basic sciences must include both general chemistry and general physics and may include other sciences. The engineering sciences include mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical circuits, materials science, transport phenom- ena, and computer science (but not programming courses). Engineering design has proven to be a controversial area and is discussed separately below. The humanities and social sciences include anthropology, economics (but not engineering economics), fine arts (but not practice- oriented courses), history, literature, political science, psychology, sociology, and foreign languages (but not speaking courses in the student’s native language). The laboratory experience should be appropriate to combine elements of theory and practice. Kersten (1989) discusses the laboratory requirement in more detail. The computer-based experience should be sufficient enough so that the student can demonstrate efficiency in application and use of digital computers. Competency in written and oral communication is expected. The semester credits listed in Table 4-2 are based on a total of 128 for graduation. The requirements are adjusted if more or fewer hours are required for graduation, and the numbers are adjusted for schools on a quarter system. Engineering design has been the most controversial area of the ABET criteria. There is no consensus on exactly what is and what is not design. Schools that see their mission as producing candidates for graduate schools or broadly educated individuals tend to want to decrease the design requirement, whereas schools producing graduates for industry want to increase the design requirement. An additional problem is that many faculty do not have industrial design experience and have difficulty teaching design. The ABET (1989) document states that design produces a system, component, or process for specific needs. The design process is often iterative and includes decision making normally with economic and other constraints. Appropriate mathematics, science, and engineering Mathematics past Trigonometry Basic science Engineering science Engineering design Humanities and social science Laboratory experience Computer-based experience Written and oral communication Other * Credit hours not specified. 16 16 32 16 13 * * * * Base 128 TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF ABET CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS 62 CHAPTER 4: COURSES: OBJECTIVES AND TEXTBOOKS Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz principles should be employed in the design process. The fundamental elements often include setting objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, evaluation, and communication of results. Student problems should include some of the following features: creativity, open-ended problems, design methodology, formulation of problem statements, alternate solutions, feasibility, and design of system details in addition to economics. Drafting skill courses cannot be used to satisfy the design requirements. ABET states that normally at least one course must be primarily design at the senior level and draw upon material from other courses. This is often interpreted as the need for a “capstone” course, although ABET (1989) does not use this wording. Proposed changes in the accreditation criteria for design are discussed by Christian (1991). If approved, these changes will strengthen the requirement for a “meaningful, major engineering design experience,” but the engineering science and design categories will be combined. This latter provision might reduce the amount of design at some schools, and the proposal is controversial. Engineering courses do not need to be listed as entirely engineering science or engineering design but can be split between the two. When a program is accredited, the choice of split may have to be justified. Thus, a professor teaching an undergraduate course does not have complete freedom of content, but must take care to follow the split between engineering science and design that the department has designated. The ABET accreditation procedure starts with a letter to the dean who responds that reaccreditation is desired. The school then fills out very detailed questionnaires for each program to be accredited. One volume of general information and a second volume with detailed information on each accredited engineering program are prepared. Resumes for all faculty members in the programs are included. An ABET team, which consists of the team captain and one member for each program to be accredited, visits the school for three days. The team members speak with faculty and students, study course notebooks prepared by the faculty, investigate student transcripts, tour the facilities, and ask for any information they consider to be pertinent. ABET examiners typically ask about class size, teaching loads, space availability, course work, and the quality and morale of faculty and students. A weakest-link theory is used to determine whether students have met the minimum ABET requirements. That is, it must be impossible for a student to graduate without satisfying the ABET requirements. Accreditation visits are considered extremely important, and considerable time is spent preparing for them. The accrediting team has several choices of outcome in their report. They can accredit the program for a full six-year term or for an interim three-year period with a report to justify the additional three years. Or, the accreditation can be for three years with both a report and an additional visit required before the next three years will be accredited. For unsatisfactory programs a show cause might be given. A show cause means that the school must show why ABET should not remove accreditation. Finally, the visiting team may decide not to accredit the program. Note that an accreditation report that gives less than complete accreditation is often used to obtain needed additional resources from the university. In November 1992 the ABET Board of Directors approved the proposed changes in design criteria. The engineering science and engineering design critera in Table 4-2 are combined. The design experience must be developed and integrated throughout the curriculum and there must be a "meaningful, major engineering design experience." CHAPTER 4: COURSES: OBJECTIVES AND TEXTBOOKS 63 Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Writing objectives may be like many other things that are good for you but are not particularly pleasant. Prepare them once for one course. The experience will sharpen your teaching both in that course and in other courses, even if you do not formally write objectives for other courses. Bloom’s taxonomy is extremely helpful in ensuring the proper distribution of class time, student effort, and quiz questions. Carefully classifying objectives and test questions as to the level on the taxonomy is also a very useful exercise to do for at least one class. Then in later classes the level will usually be obvious. The ABET requirements may not be high on your list of interesting reading. However, if new faculty are unaware of the ABET requirements, it is unlikely that their courses will meet the spirit of these criteria. This is particularly true of including design as some fraction of a course. In addition, to be informed participants in the current debate on accreditation requirements, faculty must understand the current requirements. After reading this chapter, you should be able to: • Write objectives at specified levels of both the cognitive and the affective taxonomies. • Develop a teaching approach to satisfy a particular objective. • Decide whether to use a textbook in a course and select an appropriate textbook. • List and discuss the ABET requirements for accreditation of an undergraduate engineer- ing program. 1 Pick a required undergraduate engineering course. Write six cognitive objectives for this course with one at each level of Bloom’s taxonomy. 2 Write two objectives in the affective domain for the course selected in problem 1. 3 Pick an undergraduate laboratory course. Write two objectives in the psychomotor domain. 4 Objective 10 in Table 4-1 includes a cognitive and an affective domain objective. Classify each of these. 5 For the course selected in problem 1 decide whether a textbook should be used. Explain your answer. 6 The following statement can be debated. “ABET accreditation has strengthened engineering education in the United States.” a Take the affirmative side and discuss this statement. b Take the negative side and discuss this statement. 4.7. CHAPTER COMMENTS 4.8. SUMMARY AND OBJECTIVES HOMEWORK 64 CHAPTER 4: COURSES: OBJECTIVES AND TEXTBOOKS Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz ABET, Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Engineering in the United States, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, New York, 1989. Beakley, G. C., “Publishing a textbook? A how-to-do-it kit of ideas,” Eng. Educ., 299 (Feb. 1988). Bird, R. B., “Book writing and chemical engineering education: Rites, rewards and responsibilities,” Chem. Eng. Educ., 17, 184 (Fall 1983). Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., and Krathwohl, D. R., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, David McKay, New York, 1956. (This book has many examples from a variety of areas.) Christian, J. T., “Current ABET accreditation issues involving design,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, Washington, DC,1519 (1991). DeBrunner, V., “Performance-based instruction in electrical engineering,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, Washington, DC, 1589, 1991. Eble, K. E., The Craft of Teaching, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1988. Hanna, G. S. and Cashin, W. E., “Matching instructional objectives, subject matter, tests, and score interpretations,” Idea Paper No. 18, Center for Faculty Education and Development, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 1987. Hewitt, G. F., “Chemical engineering in the British Isles: The academic sector,” Chem. Engr. Rsch. Des., 69 (A1), 79 (Jan. 1991). Johnson, G. R., Taking Teaching Seriously: A Faculty Handbook, Texas A&M University Center for Teaching Excellence, College Station, TX , 1988. Kersten, R. D., “ABET criteria for engineering laboratories,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, Washington, DC, 1043, 1989. Kibler, R. J., Barker, L. L., and Miles, D. T., Behavioral Objectives and Instruction, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1970. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., and Masia, B., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: The Affective Domain, David McKay, New York, 1964. Krull, K., Twelve Keys to Writing Books That Sell, Writer’s Digest, Cincinnati, 1989. Levine, M. L., Negotiating a Book Contract: A Guide for Authors, Agents and Lawyers, Moyer Bell, New York, 1988. Mager, R. F., Preparing Instructional Objectives, Fearon Publishers, Palo Alto, CA, 1962. Mueller, L. W., How to Publish Your Own Book, Harlo Press, Detroit, 1978. National Association of College Stores, Questions and Answers on Copyright for the Campus Commu- nity, NACS, 1991. (For copies write to NACS, 500 East Lorain St., Oberlin, OH, 44074-1294.) Palmer, P. J., To Know As We are Known: A Spirituality of Education, Harper, San Francisco, 1983. Plants, H. L., “Content comes first,” Eng. Educ., 533 (March 1972). Plants, H. L., “Basic problem-solving skills,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, Washing- ton, DC, 210, 1986. Plants, H. L., “Teaching models for teaching problem solving,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, Washington, DC, 983, 1989. Plants, H. L., Dean, R. K., Sears, J. T., and Venable, W. S., “A taxonomy of problem-solving activities and its implications for teaching,” In Lubkin, J. L. (Ed.), The Teaching of Elementary Problem Solving in Engineering and Related Fields, ASEE, Washington, DC, 21-34, 1980. Plants, H. L., Sears, J. T., and Venable, W. S., “Making tools work,” Eng. Educ., 410 (March 1973). REFERENCES CHAPTER 4: COURSES: OBJECTIVES AND TEXTBOOKS 65 Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Roden, M. S., “How to make more than $.25 per hour as a textbook author,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, Washington, DC, 52 1987. Sears, J. T. and Dean, R. K., “Chemical engineering applications of a problem-solving taxonomy,” AIChE Symp. Ser.,79(228), 1 (1983). Stice, J. E., “A first step toward improved teaching,” Eng. Educ., 394 (Feb. 1976). Sykes, T., “Textbooks as scholarships?” TAA Report 5(4), 5 (Oct. 1991). Taveggia, T. C., and Hedley, R. A., “Teaching really matters, or does it?” Eng. Educ., 546 (March 1972). 66 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz CHAPTER 5 PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY Engineering education focuses heavily on problem solving, but many professors teach content and then expect students to solve problems automatically without being shown the process involved. Our position is that an explicit discussion of problem-solving methods and problem-solving hints should be included in every engineering class. A problem-solving taxonomy was briefly discussed in Section 4.2.4. Most engineering schools are very good at teaching routines, and most engineering students become very proficient at them. And since diagnosis is required for many problems, particularly in upper-division courses, most students become reasonably proficient at it also. Students in general are not proficient at strategy, interpretation, and generation. These three areas of the problem-solving taxonomy will be discussed throughout this chapter. In this chapter we will first briefly discuss some of the basic ideas about problem solving and compare the differences between novices and experts. Then a strategy for problem solving which works well for well-understood problems will be presented, and methods (heuristics) for getting unstuck will be discussed. The teaching of problem solving will be covered with a number of hints that can be used in class. Finally, creativity will be discussed. Extensive studies have shown that problem solving is a complicated process. The concept map shown in Figure 5-1 gives some idea of the interactions and complexities involved (this figure is modified from the one in Chorneyko et al., 1979). An entire book would be required to explain the information on this map fully. Readers who feel a need to understand parts of this map which are not explained in this chapter are referred to the extensive list of references at the end of the chapter. 66 5.1. PROBLEM SOLVING—AN OVERVIEW TEACHING ENGINEERING CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY 67 Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Cognitive psychologists are in general agreement that there are generalizable problem- solving skills, but that problem solving is also very dependent upon the knowledge required to solve the problem [see Chapter 14 and Kurfiss (1988) for a review]. Of the prerequisites shown in Figure 5-1, knowledge and motivation are the most important. Problem solving can be classified by the type of problem which must be solved. Three different classification schemes are shown in Figure 5-1. A scheme based on the degree of definition of the problem (Cox, 1987) is useful since it ties in closely with the strategy required. Subproblem Working backward Contradiction Subproblem Known Unknown Diagram system Constraint Criteria Simplification Generalization Analysis Definition Atmosphere Triggers Decision making Criteria Methods Previously solved Modified from previously solved Types Well-defined givens and goals— never seen before Well defined givens—poorly defined goals III-structured Routines Diagnosis Strategy Interpretation Generation Poorly defined givens—well defined goals New Process (design) Cause and cure (troubleshooting) Why? (understanding structure and function) Hypothesis and discovery (research) Perception Group skills Morale Chairperson Member Communication Motivation Task Memory Budgetting time Knowledge Experience PROBLEM SOLVING Collecting data Experiments Lecture Library Evaluation Memory board Structure Internal External Others 3- or 7-step Woods et al. Mettes et al. Polya Kepner-Tregoe Hints (what, when) Strategy (how) Learning skills Synthesis Degree- defined The unknown Prerequisites (what) Generalize Check Do it Plan Explore Define Can do Creativity FIGURE 5-1 CONCEPT MAP OF PROBLEM SOLVING. Reprinted with permission of CEE, 13 , 132, (1979). 68 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Relatively structured strategies are most useful for well-defined problems (Mettes et al., 1981). Ill-structured and less well-defined problems need an approach which focuses on determining what the problem and goals are (Kepner and Tregoe, 1965; Fogler, 1983). Various multistep strategies are often appropriate for problems with intermediate degrees of definition (see Section 5.3). The classification based on the unknown is discussed by Chorneyko et al. (1979). The various elements of problem solving in Figure 5-1 show how it interacts with other cognitive activities. Analysis and synthesis are part of Bloom’s taxonomy while generaliza- tion is a seldom taught part of the problem-solving taxonomy. Simplification is a procedure that many experts use to get a rapid fix on the solution (see Section 5.2.). Creativity is an extensively studied, but not really well understood, adjunct to problem solving. Creativity can be enhanced in individuals with proper coaching (see section 5.6). Finally, decision making is often a part of problem solving which connects it to the Myers-Briggs analysis (see Chapter 13) and is a major part of the Kepner and Tregoe (1965) approach. Experts have about 50,000 “chunks” of specialized knowledge and patterns stored in their brains in a readily accessible fashion (Simon, 1979). The expert has the knowledge linked in some form and does not store disconnected facts. Exercises which require students to develop trees or networks can help them form appropriate linkages (Staiger, 1984). Accumulation of this linked knowledge requires about ten years. Since it is not feasible to accumulate this much information in four or five years, producing experts is not a realistic goal for engineering education. However, it is reasonable to mold proficient problem solvers who have the potential to become experts after more seasoning in industry. How do the novices who start college differ from experts? This has been the topic of many studies (Dansereau, 1986; Fogler, 1983; Hankins, 1986; Larkin et al., 1980; Lochhead and Whimbey, 1987; Mayer, 1992; Smith, 1986, 1987; Whimbey and Lochhead, 1982; Woods, 1980, 1983; Woods et al., 1979; Yokomoto and Ware, 1990). A number of observations on how novice problem solvers differ from experts are listed in Table 5-1. Read through it briefly before proceeding. The table is arranged in roughly the sequence in which one solves problems. The differences between novices and experts show some areas that engineering educators can work on to improve the problem-solving ability of students. In the category of prerequisites, students should be encouraged to learn the fundamentals and do deep processing. Knowledge should be structured so that patterns, instead of single facts, can be recalled. Motivation and confidence are important, so professors should encourage students and serve as models of persistence in solving problems. In working problems, students need to practice defining problems and drawing sketches. The differences between a student’s sketch and that of an expert should be delineated, and the student should be required to redraw the sketch. Students also need to practice paraphrasing the problem statement and looking at different ways to interpret the problem. A distinct 5.2. NOVICE AND EXPERT PROBLEM SOLVERS CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY 69 Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz strategy should be used (see the next section). Students should also practice analyzing problems to break the problem into parts, and they need to be encouraged to perform the explore step. A chug-and-plug mentality should be discouraged, and students should be encouraged to return to the fundamentals. Once students know a strategy, they should be encouraged to monitor their progress. Methods for getting unstuck should be taught (see Section 5.4). Then once the problem has been completed, students should be required to check their results and evaluate them versus internal and external criteria. After the problems have been graded, some mechanism for ensuring that students learn from their mistakes is required. Throughout the process students should be encouraged to be accurate and active. Specifics of methods for teaching problem solving are discussed in more detail in Section 5.5. Memory Attitude Categorize Problem statement Simple well-defined problems Strategy Information Parts (harder problems) First step done (harder problems) Sketching Characteristic Small pieces Few items Try once and then give up Anxious Superficial details Difficulty redescribing Slow and inaccurate Jump to conclusion Slow Work backward Trial and error Don't know what is relevant Cannot draw inferences from incomplete data Do NOT analyze into parts Try to calculate (Do It step) Often not done “Chunks” or pattern ~ 50,000 items Can-do if persist Confident Fundamentals Many techniques to redescribe Fast and accurate Take time defining tentative problem May redefine several times ~ 4 times faster Work forwards with known procedures Use a strategy Recognize relevant information Can draw inferences Analyze parts Proceed in steps Look for patterns Define and draw Sketch Explore Considerable time Abstract principles Show motion Novices Experts TABLE 5-1 COMPARISON OF NOVICE AND EXPERT PROBLEM SOLVERS 70 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Limits Equations Solution procedures Monitoring solution progress If stuck Accuracy Evaluation of result Mistakes or failure to solve problems Actions Decisions Characteristic Do not calculate Memorize or look up detailed equations for each circumstance “Uncompiled” Decide how to solve after writing equation Do not do Guess Quit Not concerned DO NOT Check Do not do Ignore it Sit and think Inactive Quiet Do NOT understand process No clear criterion May calculate to get quick fix on solution Use fundamental relations to derive needed result “Compiled” procedures Equation and solution method are single procedure Keep track Check off versus strategy Use Heuristics Persevere Brainstorm Very accurate Check and recheck Do from broad experience Learn what should have done Develop new problem solving methods Use paper and pencil Very active Sketch, write questions, flow paths.Subvocalize (talk to selves) Understand decision process Clear criterion Novices Experts TABLE 5-1(CONT) COMPARISON OF NOVICE AND EXPERT PROBLEM SOLVERS 5.3. PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGIES Many experts have difficulty verbalizing the problem-solving strategy they are using since the strategy has become automatic. When an expert does verbalize how he or she solves a problem, it is clear that a distinct strategy has been used. Novices have a strategy also—it is a trial-and-error strategy. It is not very effective and does not help the novice become a better problem solver. A distinct problem-solving strategy should be demonstrated and then required from students. The exact strategy used is not important; what is important is that the strategy be used consistently and that students be required to use it. Woods et al. (1979) suggest that the strategy have between [...]... example, the word creativity can be used (Sadowski, 1987): Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY 83 C - combine R - reverse E - expand A - alter T - tinier I - instead of V - viewpoint change I - in another sequence T - to other uses Y - yes! yes! (affirm new ideas) Most engineers tend to be heavily left-brain-oriented Their creativity can be enhanced by having... incorporate both problem-solving and creativity exercises in an engineering course • Explain the three steps which can foster creativity and use some of the techniques HOMEWORK 1 Develop several five- to ten-minute problem-solving exercises for an undergraduate engineering course 2 Develop several five- to ten-minute creativity exercises for an undergraduate engineering course 3 List thirty open-ended questions... of expertise,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, Washington, DC, 1962, 1990 Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz TEACHING ENGINEERING CHAPTER 6 LECTURES The most common form of teaching in engineering classes in the United States is undoubtedly lecturing, and for many professors lecturing is synonymous with teaching Lecturing can be an effective, efficient, and satisfying method for both... “On teaching problem solving Part II: The challenges,” Chem Eng Educ., 140 (Summer Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz 88 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY 1977) Woods, D R., Crowe, C M., Hoffman, T W., and Wright, J D., “Major challenges to teaching problemsolving skills,” Eng Educ., 277 (Dec 1979) Woods, D R., “Problem solving and chemical engineering, ” AIChE Symp Ser 79 (228) 22 (19 83) ... through a structured problem-solving procedure (Wales and Stager, 1977; Wales et al., 1986) This method will be discussed further in Chapter 9 In a book used to teach problem solving, Rubenstein (1975) discusses five models of problem solving Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY 73 5.4 GETTING STARTED OR GETTING UNSTUCK A problem-solving strategy is not much... Another closely related heuristic involves solving special cases 2 Check to see that the problem is not under- or overspecified Problems that are under- or overspecified need interpretation before they can be solved Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz 74 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY 3 Relate the problem to a similar problem which you know how to solve Solutions to similar problems can... professors do to encourage the latent creativity of every student? We will discuss three things that professors can do in engineering classes 1 Tell students to be creative 2 Teach students some creativity methods 3 Accept the results of creative exercises Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz 80 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY 5.6.1 Tell Students to be Creative People are more creative when... M., MacLeod, L K., Moore, R F., Norman, S L., Stoankovich, R J., Tyne, S C., Wong, L K., and Woods, D R., “What is Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz 86 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY problem solving?” Chem Eng Educ., 132 (Summer 1979) Christensen, J J., “Reflections on teaching creativity,” Chem Eng Educ., 22, 170 (Fall 1988) Cox, V G., “An application of cognitive science to understanding... “Problem-solving: A freshman experience,” Eng Educ., 172 (Nov 1976) Lochhead, J and Whimbey, A., Teaching analytical reasoning through thinking aloud pair problem solving,” in Stice, J E (ed.), Developing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No 30 , Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 73, 1987 Lumsdaine, E and Lumsdaine, M., “Full implementation of a first-year... problem solving,” Proceedings ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, Washington, DC, 1572, 1991 Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY 87 Mayer, R E., Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition, W H Freeman, New York, 1992 Mettes, C T C W., Pilot, A., Roossink, H J., and Kramers-Pals, H., Teaching and learning problem solving in science: Part II: Learning problem solving . specified. 16 16 32 16 13 * * * * Base 128 TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF ABET CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION OF ENGINEERING PROGRAMS 62 CHAPTER 4: COURSES: OBJECTIVES AND TEXTBOOKS Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz principles. there must be a "meaningful, major engineering design experience." CHAPTER 4: COURSES: OBJECTIVES AND TEXTBOOKS 63 Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Writing objectives may be. do Creativity FIGURE 5-1 CONCEPT MAP OF PROBLEM SOLVING. Reprinted with permission of CEE, 13 , 132 , (1979). 68 CHAPTER 5: PROBLEM SOLVING AND CREATIVITY Teaching Engineering - Wankat & Oreovicz Relatively