Límites de los Derechos de Acceso al Transporte.

As a whole, engineering programs worked diligently to meet the new ABET accreditation criteria, including the requirement to improve students’ ability to communicate; three-quarters of

the programs surveyed reported a moderate or significant increase in the emphasis on communication (Lattuca, Terenzini, and Volkwein). Although curriculum and pedagogical changes have been made at most engineering schools, the real question is whether or not the changes are producing the desired results. Five years after ABET adopted the new accreditation standards, the agency hired the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University to conduct a three-and-a-half year study to determine the effectiveness of EC2000. The researchers solicited information from administrators, faculty, employers, and graduates (pre- and post-EC2000) to answer one primary question: “Are engineers who graduated from programs since implementation of the EC2000 standards better prepared for careers in

engineering than their counterparts who graduated before introduction of the criteria?” (Prados, Peterson, and Lattuca). The findings of the study indicated that the changes implemented by schools in response to EC2000 had positive effects in all areas of the new accreditation

requirements, including criterion g: “an ability to communicate effectively” (ABET, Criteria for

Accrediting Engineering Programs). The students’ self-reported ranking of communication skills

indicated improvement compared to pre-EC2000 levels, although the improvement was not as strong as most of the other areas, moving from an adjusted mean score of 3.74 to 3.97 (on a 5- point scale) (Lattuca, Terenzini, and Volkwein). Although some question the use of self- reporting studies, ABET notes that “when self-reports are aggregated to compare to the

performance of groups, they are generally considered to be valid measurements of skills under study” (Lattuca, Terenzini, and Volkwein 6). Even with the concern over self-reports, the results of the research on the effectiveness of EC2000’s learning outcome g are positive; there has been improvement, which was ABET’s original purpose for implementing EC2000.

While ABET touts the study as a strong indicator of the effectiveness of EC2000 and asserts that “the pre- to post-EC2000 changes in program curricula, practices, and policies … are positively related at statistically significant, if sometimes small-to-moderate, levels even after taking other factors into account” (Lattuca, Terenzini, and Volkwein p. 9), others note that the changes have not been significant. Wayne Whiteman looked at the curricula of 20 mechanical engineering programs before EC2000 and again after those schools were accredited under the new standards. After reviewing three studies that took place over a 20-year period, he concluded that there were only minor variations in the curriculums over the 20 years with the exception of two “small noticeable trends” (193) including slight increases in the amount of math required and the choices in elective classes. Obviously, neither of those trends relate to communication or work to improve the communication skills of the students.

Even if some consider the changes in curriculum slight, an increased emphasis on

communication in the engineering curriculum has been seen in recent years, and many, including Prados, Peterson, and Lattuca believe that EC2000 served as the catalyst for that change. Some even maintain that the increased emphasis appears to have helped students improve their

communication skills. However, there are still complaints that entry-level engineers are not better communicators than those who graduated pre-EC2000, and the complaints are not coming solely from the industry. One study done by Sageev and Romanowski found that recent

graduates of engineering programs felt their technical communication classes did not adequately prepare them for their professional jobs. But they also note that communication skills, both oral and written, are essential to their careers. Darling and Dannels analyzed curriculum changes in the University of Utah’s Department of Engineering to consider how different pedagogical approaches impact students’ communication skills. In addition, they collected data from

engineering alumni to consider the role that communication skills play in professional

engineering. The researchers concluded that engineers lack the necessary communication skills upon graduation and emphasized that engineers are spending more time communicating in their jobs than they did in the past, yet their communication skills are not improving. Research

supports the assertion that engineers need to be able to communicate in their profession; multiple studies conducted since ABET adopted the new accreditation standards show that strong

communication skills are still essential for engineers to be effective in their job at all levels and especially to receive promotions to upper-level positions (Ravesteijn, de Graaff, and Kroesen; Lappalainen; Darling and Dannels). Even with the changes in engineering curricula, it is evident that engineers are not graduating with the skills they need to be successful communicators in the field. Because of the divide between the communication skills that the profession requires and the skills that engineers have, engineering schools are still being pushed to produce graduates with better communication skills (Kassim and Ali; Ravesteijn, de Graaff, and Kroesen).

As a matter-of-fact, research continues to show that engineering graduates still do not feel they are adequately prepared and do not possess the necessary writing skills to be effective their jobs (Kassim and Ali; Steiner). Not only do they lack the necessary skills, but they also report that they spend up to half the time at work writing (Smelser), a point that makes the lack of writing skills even more troublesome for the engineers, especially since written communication skills are desired for all entry-level engineers and required for any engineer who wants to move to upper-level engineering positions (Magleby, Sorensen, and Todd; Prados, Peterson, and Lattuca). Professional engineers agree that writing is important in their occupation and note that engineers would benefit from more training, with 40% of the respondents asserting that more

emphasis in college engineering programs should be put on professional written communication skills (Smelser).