IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 31, NO. 2, MAY 1988 137

0 ot 0’1 0’2 0’3 0 4 0’5 06 0’7 0’8 09 1’0 1‘1 1’2 1’3 lime Ims)

1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0’4 0’5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0’9 1 0 1 1 1’2 1 3

Time !ms)

Fig. 6. Experimental results showing receiver DAC and demultiplexer channel 0, outputs.

the operations of the various units, is expected to do the following assignments:

draw a flowchart of the overall operation of the transmitter and receiver.

draw the clock and output waveforms for the shift register. find the constant of proportionality between the analog output

compare the values of the analog outputs with the correspond- of the DAC and the decimal equivalent of its input.

ing analog inputs.

D. High Frequency Clock Operation 1) With the same dc inputs as suggested in Section VI-A, set

transmission clock switch SW5 to position B and apply a 1 MHz ADC clock.

2) Clear system with SW 1. There is a fast sequence of operation now. Monitor the outputs of the receiver DAC and channel 0,, of the demultiplexer with a two-beam scope. The trace obtained should be as shown in Fig. 6.

3 ) Connect the filter and verify that the filter output gives the peak value of the output of that channel. Repeat for all the other channels.

4) Connect a 10-20 Hz sine waveform to channel I , of the trans- mitter multiplexer and a 10-20 Hz triangular waveform to channel I*. Leave channels I 3 and I4 as before. Repeat steps 2)-3) and in- spect filtered outputs of the demultiplexer channels. Note that the ac signals should be positive and the peak to peak value 5 2 . 4 V.

From this section, the student would be requested to do the fol- lowing assignments:

for ac inputs, calculate the maximum expected conversion time for the peak value of the analog input of each channel.

from the number of channels, and the conversion and clock frequencies, calculate the maximum allowable frequency of the ac analog signal at any input channel, using the sampling theory.

comment on the received output waveforms as the frequencies of the input signals are varied.

VII. CONCLUSIONS A versatile data transmission training system, which provides a

cheaper alternative to computer graphic simulation of data trans- mission, has been presented. The manual operation provides a use- ful step by step investigation of the overall operation especially when a low-frequency ADC clock is employed. A fairly basic knowledge of logical circuitry would be appropriate for expen- menters. Because it has been shown that preliminary experimental treatment many times improves students’ reception of the subse- quent lectures, the module can be used to illustrate the process of data transmission once the basic components of the module have been introduced in the lectures. Because of the nature of its use, the only consideration given to synchronization is that both trans- mitter and receiver be cleared before start of operation. This con- dition was found to be satisfactory. For more meticulous synchro- nization consideration, other well known methods may be employed. An interesting one might be that described in [6] where the transmitted data may be echoed back or the receiver clock sent to the transmitter over either of the two lines for comparison. Al- though the system, as it is, is not easily amenable to modifications, a good knowledge of the operation will provide a useful tool for the student to design any data transmission system based upon other protocols of transmission and reception. For example, it is possible to design a faster, though more complex, system such that a chan- nel is being converted at the same time that the digital data of the preceding channel are being transmitted.

REFERENCES

[ I ] P. Hersch, “Data communication,” IEEE Spectrum, p. 47, Feb. 1971. [2] A. J . Weissberger, “Start data-Comm design right,” Electron. D e s . ,

[3] N. E. Snow and N. Knapp, Jr., “Digital data system,” Bell Sysr. Tech.

[4] J . J. Stiffler, Theory of Synchronous Communicarion. London, En-

[ 5 ] R. J. Tocci, Digital Systems, Principle and Application. London,

[6] C. R. Smiley, “Exchange data between digital systems,” Electron.

vol. 9, p. 66, Apr. 26, 1979.

J . , vol. 54, p. 811, 1975.

gland: Prentice-Hall, 1977, p. 6.

England: Prentice-Hall, 1980, ch. 9.

Des., vol. 9 , p. 96, Apr. 26, 1977.

Engineering Plus: Challenges and Choices

EDWARD W. ERNST

Abstract-Engineering Plus is a name for a structure that provides a wide range of enchancements for the four-year baccalaureate engi- neering program. Each of these enhancements requires a year or more beyond the basic engineering program. The Engineering Plus umbrella covers programs that include the basic engineering program plus something in addition. The something else is not just a random collec- tion of courses but it is an educational experience which is designed to meet a particular educational goal.

One of the characteristics of engineering education is the con- tinual self-examination to which it subjects itself. This process has helped engineering education to respond to the changing needs for the education of those who seek to enter the profession. The re- sponses have included changes in courses and curricula, the intro- duction of new curricular programs, and an increased emphasis on graduate study and research. Even more and greater change seems

Manuscript received September 25, 1987. The author was with the College of Engineering, University of Illinois,

Urbana, IL 61801. He is now with the National Science Foundation, Wash- ington, DC 20550.

IEEE Log Number 882003 1.

0018-9359/88/0500-0137$01 .OO O 1988 IEEE

1

138 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 31, NO. 2, MAY 1988

necessary if the changing and increasing demands on engineering education are to be satisfied. Two examples illustrate this.

At a recent meeting of the advisory board of a leading college of engineering, the industry representatives offered several obser- vations about educational programs in engineering:

The graduates need better communication skills. The curriculum should have a greater multidisciplinary thrust. The graduates need more management and interpersonal skills. The curriculum should have more breadth and greater flexi-

Industry internships are needed for both faculty and students. The barriers that exist between the departments should be

lower and cooperation between the departments should be higher. Following the study by the Committee on the Education and Uti-

lization of the Engineer of the National Research Council, the fol- lowing conclusions about baccalaureate programs in engineering were offered:

bility.

There is a need for more liberal arts and humanities. There is a need for more cross-disciplinary technical study. There is a need for more depth in the discipline of choice. There is a need for more exposure to business practices that

involve the engineer. There is a need for exposing the engineering student to indus-

trial life in an interning mode. We should take care to conserve the diversity we now enjoy

in engineering education, and seek to add to it as the needs de- velop.

The conclusions offered by both groups emphasize the diversity of engineering education and the diverse roles for which an engi- neering education is expected to prepare the graduate. These com- ments and observations, along with similar comments from other groups, indicate strongly that engineering education is faced with a near-impossible task. Consider, for example,

The four-year baccalaureate program in engineering is full and overflowing.

An engineering education leads to a multiplicity of career op- portunities.

Including more topics in the baccalaureate program increases the stress on the search for excellence in engineering education.

Excellence, diversity, breadth, and a four-year baccalaureate ap- pear incompatible. It is tempting to believe that all these goals can be satisfied simultaneously but it has not been done, and it appears that it may be impossible to do.

One approach is to abandon the four-year limit and add whatever is needed to the undergraduate engineering program. This approach leads to the consideration of a five-year baccalaureate program and has received much attention, but it does not seem to be the answer and we see few institutions moving in that direction. There are two problems with the five-year baccalaureate that deserve particular attention. First, a baccalaureate degree and a four-year time span are closely linked in the minds of many. Second, the need for di- versity in engineering education is large and a five-year baccalau- reate may meet this need no better than the four-year baccalaureate.

Another approach is to ask a different question. Rather than seek to expand the undergraduate engineering program to accommodate those topics and educational experiences seen as desirable (or even essential) for an engineering graduate, we could ask what should be expected from an undergraduate engineering education that is limited to four years. It seems clear that a four-year undergraduate engineering education should not be expected to provide an edu- cation of the breadth and depth needed to satisfy all the goals held for an engineering education including that of providing the nec- essary background for the diversity of careers that engineering graduates enter. The four-year baccalaureate in engineering can, however, serve as a basic component of the educational program needed for a broad variety of careers to which engineering gradu- ates aspire.

Consider the following ideas about engineering education which can serve as a basis for a different approach to meeting the demands placed on engineering education.

First, engineering education is a continuum, a spectrum of ed- ucational activities that begins very early in one’s life and contin- ues very late. In terms of formal, identifiable educational activity, one could say that it begins with kindergarten and continues through the public schools, then into the undergraduate and graduate pro- grams in engineering and through the continued lifelong learning activities in which the employed engineer must participate through- out his or her active career as an engineer.

Second, whatever program of engineering education is devised for the undergraduate and graduate years, the present four-year baccalaureate engineering program should be the core.

Third, the minimum program of engineering education will re- quire more than four years to complete.

Fourth, diversity and breadth in both the technical and nontech- nical portions of the engineering education program is necessary.

Engineering Plus is a name for a structure that provides a wide range of enhancements for the basic four-year baccalaureate engi- neering program. Each of these enhancements requires a year or more beyond the basic engineering program. The Engineering Plus umbrella covers programs that include the basic engineering pro- gram plus something in addition. The something else is not just a random collection of courses that total to a minimal number of credit hours or a minimum length of calendar time to be filled with an assortment of interesting but not necessarily related activities, but it is an educational experience which is designed to meet a partic- ular educational goal. As examples, consider that Engineering Plus programs could be designed to provide,

1) additional background in the discipline, 2) a broader education in the liberal arts, 3) a background in the business and management area, 4) a background in technical marketing, 5) an intern experience of a year or more, 6 ) a broader development of the ability to communicate, 7) a background in another technical area, 8) a background in manufacturing engineering and/or manage-

ment, and 9) an introduction to both technical and nontechnical aspects of

a given industry such as the telecommunications industry. The Engineering Plus concept includes other options that may

be quite different from the ones just noted. Many of these options are largely nontechnical which may suggest that these studies should be abandoned to faculties in those areas. It will be necessary for faculty in those areas to be involved, but it is crucial that en- gineering faculty are also involved to assure that the educational objectives for the total Engineering Plus education are achieved.

Engineering educators are engineers first and educators second. As engineers, they know the advantages of a homogeneous product mix. The need for great diversity and individuality in the programs available for students runs counter to this view. Engineers work to specifications that are designed to assure that products and services that result are alike, not different. When it is suggested that an engineering education should have many diverse paths to provide an educational opportunity to match the needs of each student, even though these career paths are varied and diverse, it is clearly con- trary to the way most engineers resolve the problems with which they are faced.

Growth of Engineering Plus programs requires acceptance by students. Important to student acceptance is whether or not the ca- reer paths that Engineering Plus programs offer the student are more attractive than the career paths available to graduates from the basic engineering program. The student should receive recognition for the added effort of an Engineering Plus program. A masters degree is appropriate for distinguishing the accomplishment of the Engi- neering Plus program from that of the basic engineering program. In keeping with the breadth and diversity of the Engineering Plus program, it is expected that more than one kind of masters degree may be used to designate the completion of an Engineering Plus program. Perhaps a Master of Arts in engineering could be used to recognize a variety of programs beyond the basic engineering pro- gram which do not have the depth of technical content expected of

1

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 31, NO. 2, MAY 1988 139

programs usually recognized with a Master of Science in engineer- ing. This could be used for many of those occasions when our pres- ent alternative is a second bachelor’s degree. It is also essential that graduates of Engineering Plus programs be accepted by the marketplace. Acceptance may be measured not only by higher starting salaries but also by increased career development oppor- tunities for the graduates of Engineering Plus programs.

The implementation of an Engineering Plus program does not require that any new degree programs be established. However, as noted previously, the availability of a Master of Arts in engineering to recognize some programs beyond the basic engineering program which do not have the depth of technical content expected of pro- grams usually recognized with a Master of Science in engineering would be helpful. Rather, what is needed is to create and describe the program and to offer the program to engineering students at the institution as well as to prospective students. The essential ele- ments of an Engineering Plus program are the advising procedures and a list of enhancements to the basic engineering program that, if included in the total program of studies for the student, would qualify the program as an Engineering Plus program.

Students choosing to pursue an Engineering Plus program would be assigned to an Engineering Plus faculty advisor. These faculty members would constitute the committee responsible for oversight and direction of the program. The advisor would help the student select a particular enpancement that would be expected to match best with the educational goals and objectives of the student. In addition, the advisor would also help the student select courses or other activities appropriate for the enhancement selected. Students pursuing an Engineering Plus program would be designated as En- gineering Plus students as well as students in the disciplinary ori- ented degree program of their choice. Upon completion of the re- quirements for both the basic engineering program and the selected enchancement, the student’s record would indicate that the require- ments for each of these parts of the program of studies had been completed and that the requirements for an Engineering Plus pro- gram had been satisfied.

The initial listing of Engineering Plus enhancements would in- clude those enhancements that are available to students in an en- gineering program or to students who have completed a basic en- gineering program. Enhancements available to students enrolled in engineering include

a) an industry internship that qualifies as a cooperative engi- neering education experience,

b) a second baccalaureate in another technical discipline, and c) a second baccalaureate in the liberal arts. Enhancements available to students who have graduated from a

basic engineering program include those listed above as well as a wide range of others including

a) graduate study in the discipline, b) graduate study in another discipline, c) law school, d) medical school, and e) an MBA program. Other enhancements include programs requiring at least another

year of study but which do not qualify for recognition in the form of another existing degree; this includes many cross-disciplinary programs. Although the student could pursue a program of this va- riety as an Engineering Plus enhancement, appropriate recognition, such as a Master of Arts in engineering, would make this a more viable and more frequently used option. Whether or not a separate degree is awarded for the studies that form the enhancement, this part of the Engineering Plus program must be an educational ex- perience that is designed to meet a particular educational goal.

It is important that the opportunities available through the En- gineering Plus program be clearly described in literature available to students and prospective students. Although Engineering Plus is, in one sense, an umbrella for a collection of special programs, it should be made clear that participation in an Engineering Plus program is an option available to all engineering students.

Thus, Engineering Plus rests on three legs and all are needed: 1) The educational institutions must offer Engineering Plus pro-

grams and must make these visible to their various publics. 2) Industry, in particular those who employ graduates of engi-

neering programs, must accept the graduates of Engineering Plus programs and offer them more attractive job opportunities than are available to graduates of less-demanding programs.

3) Students must choose an Engineering Plus program by plan- ning to spend five or more years for their study of engineering and include an enrichment that will qualify their program as an engi- neering plus program.

One function that will be fulfilled by a widely recognized and well-known Engineering Plus program is to let those who are con- sidering the study of engineering know their initial commitment is not for four years but for five or more years. The basic engineering program will require four years plus an additional year or more for the enhancement that qualifies the program as an Engineering Plus program.

Engineering education for the future-like engineering educa- tion of the past-will require more from engineering education. The needs to be addressed as we fashion the engineering education programs of the future include: an increased breadth, an increased diversity, more communication skills, more people skills, more management skills, and a maintenance of the technical depth. If graduates are to be prepared for the diverse career opportunities that should be available to them, these are the challenges. The abil- ity to meet the challenges presented and to improve continually is the story of the past of engineering education and is the forerunner for the future.

REFERENCES

-, Engineering education and practice in the United States. Washington, DC: Nat. Academy Press, 1985. E. T. Cranch and G . M. Nordby, “Engineering education: At the crossroads without a compass?,” Eng. Educ. , vol. 76, pp. 742-747. May 1986. D. Christiansen, “Is the 4-year-baccalaureate obsolete?,” IEEE Spec- trum, vol. 22, p. 29, Aug. 1985.

I 1 - 1