Paper ID #21165

Perceived Importance of Leadership in their Future Careers Relative to OtherFoundational, Technical and Professional Skills among Senior Civil Engineer-ing Students

Dr. Angela R. Bielefeldt, University of Colorado, Boulder

Angela Bielefeldt is a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder in the Department of Civil, Envi-ronmental, and Architectural Engineering (CEAE). She had served as the ABET assessment coordinatorfor the department since 2008. Bielefeldt is also a licensed P.E. Professor Bielefeldt’s research interests inengineering education include service-learning, sustainable engineering, social responsibility, ethics, anddiversity.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2018

Perceived Importance of Leadership in their Future Careers

Relative to Other Foundational, Technical and Professional Skills

among Senior Civil Engineering Students

Abstract

Many demands are placed on undergraduate students to possess a broad range of foundational,

technical, and professional knowledge and skills when they graduate. Expectancy value theory

(EVT) indicates that students will be more motivated to learn topics that they believe will be

important in their future, due to utility value. Self-efficacy beliefs also contribute to learning.

Given this framework, the research explored student perceptions about the importance of

leadership to their future professional careers, where they believed they had built their leadership

skills (inclusive of courses and/or co-curricular activities), and broader student ideas about

leadership. This exploratory research used a convenience sample of senior civil engineering

students (n=117) attending a large, public, research-intensive institution. The students provided

the information used in the study in the context of completing homework assignments on lifelong

learning/professional licensure and leadership. The students considered the importance of

leadership in relation to the 24 outcomes in the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge. In fall

2016 and 2017, 28% of the seniors rated leadership among the five most important outcomes for

their future professional success; 4% rated leadership among the five least important outcomes.

Leadership was the eighth most frequently cited outcome among the most important outcomes.

Gender differences were found; 32% of the male students and 10% of the female students rated

leadership among the five most important outcomes. A higher percentage of the 2016-2017

seniors believed that leadership was highly important for their future engineering careers, as

compared to peers at the same institution 5 to 7 years earlier. The students routinely identified

four required courses that contributed to their leadership knowledge and/or skills: first-year

engineering projects, a junior-level introduction to construction course, capstone design, and a

professional issues course. Being introduced to leadership ideas early in the undergraduate

curriculum, which are reinforced in later courses, may be a good strategy to motivate students

and encourage their interest around leadership topics. A number of students also identified

internships and other co-curricular activities as contributing to their leadership skills (e.g. ROTC,

professional society president, sports activities). Instructors may want to consider the tenets of

EVT when integrating leadership education into the curriculum, explaining the utility value of

these skills in the workforce and using metacognition to have students reflect on their own

leadership experiences so that they build self-efficacy around these skills.

Introduction

There appears to be an ever-increasing body of knowledge associated with being a skilled

engineer in practice [1-4]. This includes foundational knowledge, technical information relevant

to a particular engineering discipline, and professional skills that cut across all engineering

disciplines. Leadership is one of the professional skills that appears to be gaining increasing

recognition. A search of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual

Conference proceedings identified a generally increasing number of leadership-focused papers

each year (Figure 1; regression slope 2.0 papers/year, p .006), based on leadership in the title,

conference session name, tagged topics, or tagged divisions [5].

Figure 1. Number of ASEE Annual Conference Papers focused on Leadership over Time

The revised ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) Criterion 3 outcomes for

implementation in 2019 include leadership, where previously there was no mention of leadership

in the general criteria [6]. In addition, the program-specific criteria for civil, construction, and

engineering management degrees have requirements for leadership education [6]. The National

Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) noted that an ability to apply principles of leadership

was an outcome that should be among the skills all engineers possess prior to licensure (Position

Statement 1752) [7].

One approach used to articulate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) that should be

required of engineering professionals is to explicitly identify a so-called Body of Knowledge

(BOK). A number of engineering disciplines have a BOK or have articulated the KSA outcomes

desired from engineering education, as summarized in Table 1. The Engineering BOK from the

NSPE [2] includes 30 outcomes, including leadership among 11 professional capabilities. The

civil engineering BOK, ASCE BOK2 [4], includes 24 outcomes. The leadership outcomes

expected at the Bachelor’s level for civil engineering students include defining leadership, listing

leadership principles, explaining the role of leadership, and applying leadership principles to

direct the efforts of a small homogeneous group. In the process of considering revisions to the

Civil Engineering BOK, affective domain outcomes are being considered, such as “show interest

in becoming a leader within the civil engineering profession” [13]. Leadership is also among the

expected outcomes for environmental [8], chemical [3], and mechanical engineers [9], as well as

civil engineering technologists [11]. International standards for engineering education also

endorse the importance of leadership [12].

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

# le

ader

ship

-fo

cuse

d p

aper

s at

ASE

E A

nn

ual

Co

nfe

ren

ce

Year

Table 1. Summaries of Disciplinary Bodies of Knowledge in Engineering Engineering

Discipline(s)

[reference]

Number outcomes Leadership-Related Outcome(s)

All engineering

professionals

[2]

30: foundational (3),

technical (16),

professional (11)

24. Leadership: “move a team or group into new areas;

identify the individuals and groups that could be positively or

negatively affected by the change and describe those impacts

to each of the groups” (p. 17)

Civil

[4]

24: foundational (4),

technical (11),

professional (9)

20. Leadership. “Apply leadership principles to direct the

efforts of a small, homogenous group (BS). Organize and

direct the efforts of a group (Prof).”

Chemical

[3]

Affective (4)

Cognitive (41)

Psychomotor (18)

Psychomotor. Professional. 3. Leadership. “This is a skill that

allows one to motivate and guide a group or

organization to achievement of an optimal solution. Proper

application of this skill can lead to a better solution more

quickly than could be reached by individuals working alone.”

(p. 67)

Environmental

[8]

18: fundamental (1),

enabling knowledge

and skills (10),

professional (7)

{plus 16 knowledge

domains}

18. Leadership.

BS. “Define leadership and the role of a leader. List

leadership skills and attributes. Explain the role of a leader,

leadership skills and leadership attributes. Apply leadership

skills to direct the efforts of a small group.”

Prof. “Organize and direct the efforts of a group to achieve a

goal.”

Mechanical

[9]

Not a BOK “better equip mechanical engineering graduates… not only

with a solid technical foundation, but also with creativity,

strong professional skills, and leadership within engineering

and society.” (p. 15)

Software

Engineering

[10]

15 knowledge areas Professional practice. 2. Group dynamics and psychology.

{leadership not explicitly identified as a skill}

Civil Engineering

Technologist

[11]

16: 6 foundational,

3 technical, 7

professional

12. Leadership. Plan, organize, and direct the efforts of a

group and self.

All; international;

Washington Accord

[12]

8 knowledge profile

statements, 12

graduate attributes,

12 professional

competencies

WA9. “Function effectively as an individual, and as a

member or leader in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary

settings” (p. 11)

WA11. “Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of

engineering management… apply these to one’s own work,

as a member and leader in a team, to manage projects and in

multidisciplinary environments” (p. 11)

Expectancy value theory (EVT) should be considered when trying to teach engineering students

leadership skills, particularly in crowded undergraduate programs attempting to meet a broad

diversity of learning goals. EVT has been related to students’ motivation for learning [14, 15]. It

has been found that students’ performance correlates with the value that they assign to a task and

the expectancy for success. Value includes intrinsic interest value (such as for personal

enjoyment), attainment value (achievement valued due to personal core values), and external

utility value (contribution toward reaching external goals). If a student perceives that leadership

skills will be helpful in their future engineering job, this could be interpreted as contributing to

their external utility value for leadership learning. Expectancy has been conceptualized through

self-efficacy. Self-efficacy in this context relates to an individual’s confidence in their ability to

lead, or learning to lead. Thus, previous positive experiences with trying to lead, perhaps in non-

engineering settings such as sports, could contribute to one’s expectancy. In contrast, if an

individual subscribes to the philosophy that leaders are born (Great Man Theory [16]) and has

had previous negative experiences trying to lead, they may have poor motivation toward learning

about leadership. As with many facets of learning, a growth mindset may be important for

leadership development in students. Isaac et al. [17] promoted EVT as a framework that should

be taught as part of leadership development, from the perspective that individuals who

understand EVT could use those principles as a leader to motivate others.

Research Questions

Four questions were explored in this research.

RQ1. To what extent do senior level undergraduate civil engineering students perceive that

leadership will be important to their future careers, relative to all 24 outcomes in the

ASCE BOK2? Do these opinions vary by gender or based on student experiences?

RQ2. How do the opinions of senior civil engineering students in recent years compare to peers

in earlier years, students majoring in other disciplines, and those attending other types of

institutions?

RQ3. What specific college courses and co-curricular / extracurricular activities do students

identify as contributing to their leadership knowledge and skills? How do they describe

these experiences as building or demonstrating leadership?

RQ4. What thoughts do senior civil engineering students have about leadership competencies?

Methods

The general approach used to answer each of the four research questions is summarized in Table

2. The majority of this exploratory research was conducted using a convenience sample of senior

undergraduate students majoring in civil engineering at a large, public, research-intensive

university and enrolled in a required professional issues course in fall 2016 and fall 2017.

Table 2. Research Approach Research Question Year(s) Setting Data Source n

1. Relative leadership

importance ranking,

differences by group

2016, 2017 Required senior professional

issues (PI) course

Homework on BOK 117

2. Compare importance

to earlier years,

other disciplines,

other institutions

2015

2011, 2009

2013, 2012, 2011

2012

2007

PI course

Civ E senior design

EnvE, ArchE senior design

USMA seminar class [23]

APPLES 4 institutions and

various engrg majors [24]

Homework on BOK

Survey on BOK outcomes

Survey on BOK outcomes

Assignment on BOK

Research survey

19

55, 27

10-40

42

109

3. Courses and activities

students describe as

building leadership

2016, 2017 PI course Homework on BOK

Homework on leadership

117

117

4. Thoughts about

leadership

competencies

2017

2016, 2017

2016, 2016

PI course

PI course

PI course

In-class exercise,

homework on BOK,

homework on leadership

2

117

117

One of the nine learning objectives in the civil engineering professional issues course was to

describe the knowledge, skills, and attributes required to become a licensed professional

engineer, based on the ASCE BOK2. This objective was an early focus in the course, informing

students why the array of professional issues topics would be important to their career in order to

motivate their learning. This maps to the extrinsic utility value construct within EVT. Two class

periods focused on the BOK2. In 2017, groups of two to three students were randomly assigned

to explore one of the BOK2 outcomes or potential new outcomes. Comments on the in-class

worksheet from the pair of students who examined leadership are included among the qualitative

results related to RQ4. The individual homework assignment related to the BOK2 required

students to map their course and co-curricular experiences to the 24 specified outcomes,

including levels of achievement. This information contributed to addressing RQ3. The next

question on the assignment asked students to rate the five outcomes that they believed to be the

most and least important in their future civil engineering career; this maps to RQ1. In the

concluding question on the assignment students summarized their thoughts about the Civil

Engineering BOK2 in 300 to 500 words. To help answer RQ4 these open-ended responses were

explored for any mention of leadership. The content analysis of the assignment was conducted

by the manuscript author (who was also the course instructor) after the assignment was graded

by the course teaching assistant. Thus, the research activity had no impact on student grades.

As part of RQ1, demographic variables were explored in relation to leadership attitudes. The

students enrolled in the course were either in their seventh semester (about 50%) or the ninth

semester (about 50%, including those requiring 4.5 or 5 years to graduate). Two students were

pursuing a leadership minor, 21 business minors, 5 an engineering management minor, and five

were participants in ROTC. The leadership minor is 16 credits and includes a first-year course on

leadership, three electives, and a leadership capstone. The business minor is 12-credits; within

the first required course students “learn the skills needed to effectively lead and manage

individuals and teams.” The engineering management minor is 18 credits. Within the first

required course in the minor students learn to “describe strategies for managing and leading

knowledge workers”. The Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) requires at least two courses

that emphasize leadership, important to training military offices who need to lead in both peace

and war. Thus, a number of the students in the course had leadership training prior to the

assessment conducted for the research. To evaluate whether or not there were differences in the

importance ratings based on demographic factors, the Fisher’s exact test was conducted [18];

statistically significant differences were inferred when two-sided p values were below 0.10.

To answer RQ2, information from the same large, public institution was available. In 2011 and

2009, senior civil engineering students enrolled in the capstone design course participated in a

lecture on lifelong learning, during which they could voluntarily complete a survey where they

ranked their perceived importance of the 24 BOK2 learning outcomes from 1 (most important) to

24 (least important). Each of the 24 outcomes were listed in the order that they are numbered in

the BOK2 and by title, including the sentence that describes the level of achievement desired of

Bachelor’s degree graduates; e.g. “20. Leadership: apply leadership principles to direct a small

group.” Given that leadership appeared near the end among a long list of options and the short

time for the survey, primacy or response order bias may have been significant (whereby

individuals are more likely to identify items listed first) [19, 20]. Some of this information was

previously published [21, 22]. Students in the environmental and architectural engineering

capstone design courses in 2011 and one additional year (2013 and 2012, respectively) also

completed this voluntary exercise. Data from the 2015 professional issues course may not be

representative of all of the civil engineering seniors due to low enrollment in the pilot version of

the course (n = 19; about 40% of the seniors). The study by Barry et al. [23] provided data from

civil engineering students attending the US Military Academy (USMA). In another study, fourth-

year students in any engineering major attending four institutions selected the five most

important knowledge/skills for engineering from among a list of twenty outcomes (contemporary

issues, societal context, global context, conduct experiments, professionalism, management

skills, math, science, business knowledge, leadership, engineering tools, life-long learning, data

analysis, creativity, ethics, engineering analysis, teamwork, communication, problem solving,

design) [24].

One of the learning objectives in the senior-level civil engineering professional issues course was

to “define and explain leadership, the role of a leader, and leadership principles and attitudes”

(ASCE BOK2, Bloom’s level of achievement 2 [4, p. 111]). The module on leadership near the

end of the semester included: leadership theories (e.g. trait, skills, style, situational, transactional,

transformational, servant), Burchard’s E6 major practices of leadership, everyday leadership, and

contrasts with management. A number of short videos, including TEDtalks, were shown. In 2016

the homework asked students to describe a class project when someone served as a leader (which

could have been informally) and whether they believed they personally possessed strong

leadership or management traits (based on the characteristics presented in [25]). The assignment

was modified in 2017 to allow students to select among four leadership papers [25-28], with

questions that varied based on the paper. Adding this element of choice to the homework was

hoped to increase student motivation, in alignment with the autonomy element in self-

determination theory. For students with previous leadership education, it was hoped that this

choice would allow them to select a reading that provided a new perspective on leadership.

Emergent content analysis of this assignment was conducted to help answer RQ3 and RQ4 (per

standard qualitative research methods described in [29]).

Results and Discussion

RQ1. Perceived Importance

Among the 24 BOK2 outcomes, leadership was rated among the five most important to their

future careers by 28% of the civil engineering seniors, the 8th highest rated outcome (Figure 2).

Leadership is closely aligned with four of the higher-rated outcomes: teamwork, communication,

ethics, and project management. These skills can contribute to leadership abilities, and vice

versa. The revised ABET Criterion 3 Outcome 5 explicitly recognizes the link between

teamwork and leadership, stating “an ability to function effectively on a team whose members

together provide leadership…” [6, p. 40]. The ASCE BOK2 notes that the “attributes of leaders

include… integrity, high ethical standards, adaptability, communication skills, …” [4, p.145].

Further, while management and leadership are distinct, “in practice, many managers perform the

leadership role” [25, p. 62]. In contrast, there were four students (3%) that included leadership

among the five outcomes that they believed would be the least important in their future career.

Eighteen other outcomes were rated as the least important by a larger number of students,

including all four of the foundational outcomes.

Figure 2. Outcomes rated among 5 most important by the largest percentage of students

The results of demographic comparisons among the civil engineering seniors are summarized in

Table 3. Somewhat fewer female students included leadership among the five most important

outcomes in their future careers; marginally statistically significant despite the small number of

female students who participated in the study. The gender difference was somewhat unexpected

based on previous literature findings. Rottman et al. (2015) found that among engineering faculty

there was not a difference in the extent to which men and women were attracted to leadership.

Ro and Knight (2016) did not find a difference in students’ self-assessed leadership skills

between women and men. Thus, the comparative importance ratings may have been a critical

difference in this study compared to previous research exploring leadership and gender

interactions. Differences in leadership importance ratings were not found due to either previous

internship experience or participation in a minor or program with leadership training courses.

Table 3. Percentage of civil engineering seniors in different groups rating leadership among the 5

most important and 5 least important outcomes

Group n Most important, % Least important, %

Male 97 32 4

Female 20 10^ 0

Previous Internship 87 30 2

No Internship 28 25 7

Minor or program with leadership 36 33 3

Not leadership-related minor or program 81 26 4 ^ Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.057

RQ2. Comparison to Previous Students, Other Majors, Other Institutions

Among civil engineering seniors attending the same institution, data in earlier years is available

for students’ importance ratings; see Table 4. A higher percentage of the civil engineering

seniors in 2015-2017 rated leadership among the top five most important outcomes for their

future career, as compared to senior civil engineering students in 2009 and 2011 (comparing

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Leadership

Technical specialization

Project management

Design

Ethics

Communication

Teamwork

Problem solving

% Students

Ou

tco

me

pooled data from these two time ranges, p = 0.0126). This increase over time in importance

perceptions of leadership among students seems to mirror the increased interest in leadership

among engineering educators (Figure 1); for example, there were 99 ASEE annual conference

papers focused on leadership from 2015 to 2017 compared to 53 from 2009-2011. Thus, the

value that engineering faculty hold for leadership may be being translated to students.

Table 4. Comparison of leadership importance ratings from senior students attending a public

research-intensive institution: different years and majors

Engineering

Major

Course Year n %

class

Leadership

importance

rank

among 24

% leadership

among 5

most

important

% leadership

among 5

least

important

Civil

Professional

Issues

2017 61 95 8 31 5

2016 56 100 8 25 2

2015 19 40 7 26 11

Capstone

design

2011 55 70 13 16 20

2009 27 40 15 11 15

Environmental 2013 40 75 12 15 22

2011 23 79 12 13 22

Architectural 2012 10 20 7 30 0

2011 37 73 9 19 14

A lower percentage of the 2016 and 2017 civil engineering seniors rated leadership among the

five least important outcomes for their future career, as compared to students in 2011 and 2009

(p = 0.0009; Table 4). In 2009 and 2011 more seniors rated leadership among the five least

important outcomes than among the five most important outcomes. This pattern had changed

dramatically by 2016 – 2017. For most students, leadership was neither perceived as a most

important nor least important outcome among the 24 options.

Data from the civil engineering students in 2011 can be compared to senior students from the

same institution who were majoring in environmental and architectural engineering (Table 4).

Differences between the majors in 2011 are not statistically significant. The 2012 architectural

engineering data looks very different, but given that only 20% of the seniors participated in the

survey, the results may not be representative of all senior architectural engineering students.

Another point of comparison is the data from the Academic Pathways of People Learning

Engineering Survey (APPLES). Among 109 fourth-year engineering students at four institutions

in 2007, ~14% identified leadership among the five most important skills/knowledge for

engineers from among a list of 20 options [24]. This was the 12th highest rated item. The majors

of these students were primarily mechanical, computer, electrical, and chemical engineering

(personal communication K. Yasuhara, as cited in [22]). This 10-year old data was similar to that

found among civil and environmental engineering seniors in 2009 and 2011 (Table 4).

A 2012 survey of civil engineering seniors at the US Military Academy (USMA) found that

leadership was ranked the 8th most important outcome among the 24 ASCE BOK2 outcomes

[23]. This was similar to the 2016 and 2017 relative ranking of leadership in this study, but

higher than the 2011 student rankings at this institution. Previous studies have found institutional

differences in students’ self-assessed leadership skills [31]. Thus, institutional differences in the

relative importance ratings are not particularly surprising. In particular, the USMA is training

future army officers, so the high importance of leadership to this group is logical.

One should also note that students may perceive an outcome to be very important even if it was

not rated among the five most important. Civil engineering seniors rated leadership importance

on a Likert-type scale in 2011; the median and mode of these ratings was 6 (1 = very

unimportant, 4 = neutral, 7 = very important). Among the same group of students, leadership

ranked 13th overall among the 24 BOK2 outcomes, with only 16% ranking leadership among the

top 5. Students may believe that all of the 24 BOK2 outcomes are important to some extent, in

alignment with the ASCE.

RQ3. Learning Leadership via Courses

Courses that the 2016 and 2017 students commonly cited as contributing to meeting the

leadership outcome are summarized in Table 5. The three courses most commonly cited were

required in the curriculum and included team projects. Only 20-30% of the students completing

the assignment had taken senior design, likely accounting for the low percentage of students

citing the course as contributing to leadership. The professional issues course had not yet

covered leadership at the time of the curriculum mapping assignment, but students had been

instructed that they could map it to the outcomes based on the syllabus, if they chose to do so.

Some courses associated with the various minors with leadership components were also mapped

by students to the leadership outcome. This included business courses, engineering management

courses, and ROTC courses. Four students (3%) explicitly stated that they believed that no

courses contributed to their leadership knowledge.

Table 5. Courses students commonly cited as contributing to leadership knowledge and skills Course %

Students

Description

First-Year Engineering

Projects

38 Required, first semester, teamwork training, teams of 5 to 6

students work on semester-long project that is majority of their

grade

Introduction to

Construction Engineering

& Management

35 Required, typically fifth semester, one group project, learning

objective to introduce students to the “professional competencies

required to effectively deliver capital projects….”

Senior Capstone Design 22 Required, final spring semester, intensive semester-long

project with ~6 students per team, includes outside speaker

from industry on leadership

Professional issues 17 Required, fall, module on leadership at end of semester focused

on leadership knowledge (not skills practice)

Project Management 1 13 Technical elective; focus on pre-construction estimating

and scheduling

Introduction to Civil

Engineering

7 Required, first semester, teams of 4-5 students complete 3-

week project that is 20% of course grade, presents civil

engineering BOK2 with leadership among the outcomes

On the leadership focused homework assignment some students described how courses had

contributed to their leadership abilities. These were usually discussions of times when they had

led a team project, or times when they worked on a team and observed good leadership by a team

mate. For example, one student wrote:

The first time I have experienced a group project where a leader was necessary to coordinate

the efforts of the team was in first year projects…. It was not explicitly discussed and

nobody was official dubbed the “leader”, but one specific person certainly did take control

of administrative duties and organizational efforts for the better of the group. It seemed that

most of the group did not want the responsibility of being the leader for the fear of failure

would land on their shoulders…. Said leader helped everyone decide which portion of the

project they wanted to tackle, and kept a list of responsibilities so there was no

miscommunication. They also provided words of encouragement and diffused frustrations

when they arose. They were undoubtedly a good leader….

The description reveals the management-type tasks coordinated by an emergent leader on the

team, as well as motivating the team to successfully meet their shared goal.

RQ3. Co-curricular and Extracurricular Activities Contributing to Leadership

After mapping the courses that contributed to meeting the 24 BOK2 outcomes, students were

instructed to add co-curricular and extracurricular activities that helped them meet the outcomes.

Informal learning experiences were included for the leadership outcome by 38% of the students.

For many students, co-curricular experiences were listed at higher levels of the leadership

outcome than their courses. Among students who had worked at an internship, 37% indicated

that it had contributed to their leadership skills. Engineers Without Borders (EWB)-related

activities contributed to the leadership abilities of 12 students, 71% of the civil seniors who

reported being active in EWB. Eight students described their activities with student societies of

the ASCE or Associated General Contractors (AGC); this included serving as an officer of the

group or participating in group activities such as the concrete canoe design competition. Other

professional societies were also mentioned, including being an officer of the American Indian

Science and Engineering Society (AISES) and honor societies. Undergraduate research

experiences, serving as an engineering mentor for first-year students, serving as a teaching

assistant (TA) for the first-year engineering projects course, and study abroad were also listed by

a few students as contributing to their leadership abilities.

One student described their leadership experiences via EWB as follows:

I am the former project manager and founder of Engineers Without Borders Paraguay

team here at [xx]. While managing the team, I learned a lot about my approach to leading

people and found that how I phrased things, how I talked to people, and other small things I

wouldn’t have noticed were critical to how effective we were as a team. Being the project

manager required me to continually refine my approach to leadership, and turned out to be a

frustrating experience at times. Overall, it was incredibly rewarding. Now, we have elected

our new project managers and I am able to act as a mentor role, which has required an

expansion of what I thought a leader was. It requires me to lead by example, and to provide

unbiased advice.

Extracurricular activities were also cited as contributing to leadership. This included activities

with fraternities / sororities (typically officer positions), non-engineering related work, activities

with sports teams (participant or coach), scouting, etc. One student described the importance of

her extracurricular involvement in developing leadership and other professional skills:

As [the Panhellenic] President it was my responsibility to manage a board of 12 executive

members and 2500 sorority women. I managed and allocated a budget of over $100,000,

while also developing new programs through partnerships with other campus clubs and [the]

community. My experience with Panhellenic taught me leadership, teamwork, professional

responsibility, communication, and project management.

The contribution of co-curricular and extracurricular activities to students’ leadership

knowledge, skills, and attitudes has been previously reported; Ostadalimakhmalbaf and Simmons

[32] cited six papers from their literature review that linked student leadership development with

participation in professional societies and associated design competitions. More specifically,

Simmons et al. [33] found that National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) participants

reported that participation in the organization was highly influential to developing their

leadership traits (mean 3.99 on a scale of 1 to 5); this was the strongest among ten traits and also

higher than students reported for participation in minority engineering programs (mean 3.52),

while leadership development was similar in fraternities/sororities (mean 3.81).

RQ4. Overall Thoughts on Leadership Competencies

During the in-class exercise in 2017, students were provided with the cognitive domain

statements at each level of achievement from the BOK2 and asked: “Do you think it is important

for ALL civil engineers to meet some levels of this outcome in the cognitive domain? Why or

why not?” The written response to this question on the handout from the pair of students

assigned to explore the leadership outcome was: “Yes, because without organization things

won’t get done. Every group needs a leader, or multiple.” The students were also presented with

proposed affective domain statements that had been developed for exploration in an updated

third edition of the BOK [34]. This included statements like “show interest in becoming a leader

within the civil engineering profession” (level 1). The students were asked: “Do you think it is

important for ALL civil engineers to meet some levels of this outcome in the affective domain?

Why or why not?” Their response was: “No, there’s a need for leaders and followers.”

Later in the semester, the course had an entire module on leadership. At the beginning of the first

class lecture on leadership, students responded to a clicker-question to rate their personal highest

Bloom’s cognitive level of achievement (LOA) for leadership per the BOK2. A few students

(14%) were unable to define leadership and/or list leadership principles and attitudes (LOA1),

while 68% believed that they had already reached the level targeted for achievement in the

course (LOA2 or higher; “explain the role of a leader and leadership principles and attitudes”).

This demonstrates a fairly high level of self-efficacy on leadership knowledge and ability among

the students, which should be positive in terms of their motivation based on EVT. Alternatively,

it may indicate that many of the students may be bored with the learning module designed for

this class. Students who believe that they have already achieved the targeted level of leadership

knowledge may feel that the module is a waste of their time. This points to a redesign of the

course, whereby about a third can work to reach LOA2 while the remaining 67% work on other

areas of professional development.

When asked what level of achievement all civil engineering students should reach with regards

to leadership when they graduate, the most popular response was in agreement with the level

specified in the ASCE BOK2 (Bloom’s cognitive LOA3, “Apply leadership principles to direct

the efforts of a small, homogenous group”). When asked what level of leadership achievement

should have been reached by all civil engineers becoming licensed professional engineers, the

most popular response was again in agreement with the ASCE BOK2 (LOA4, “Organize and

direct the efforts of a group”). In general, the results of the class poll seem to indicate that the

majority of the students believe there is utility value for leadership in the civil engineering

profession. Based on EVT, this utility value should translate into motivation for learning to

enhance leadership knowledge and skills.

Some students discussed their thoughts about leadership in relationship to the other outcomes in

the ASCE BOK2. A number of students (n=6) reflected that meeting the aspirational vision for

civil engineering in 2025 would require leadership skills. A representative quote is:

As globalization of engineering practice expands, leadership in the ethical practice of

engineering and the need to hold paramount the public health, safety, and welfare will

become more critical. The increasing need to incorporate societal impact considerations in

engineering decision-making will require better communication, management, leadership,

and other professional practice skills on the part of engineers.

Some students also noted that there should be a greater emphasis on leadership in the BOK2. A

male student participating in ROTC wrote:

The other aspect that I think the Body of Knowledge needs to touch on more is leadership.

The Body of Knowledge does talk a little about what leadership is but as a Professional

Engineer, lead engineer, project manager, etc. one needs to be able to effectively lead their

respective subordinates if they want to efficiently design projects. Poor leadership is not only

an annoyance but will take well working teams that are very capable and drag them down to

the point they are ineffective and unable to create the best design possible. If you are not

ready to lead and are still trying to figure out your leadership style you will drag your

subordinates down to failure while you try to figure it out.

Thus, an overarching document like a body of knowledge has the potential to motivate

engineering students regarding the importance of leadership skills. It can also communicate that

leadership is a skill that can be learned in a variety of settings.

When the students were given a choice of four readings on leadership, each reading was selected

by a significant percentage of the students (ranging from 31% for [25] to 20% for [27]). Six of

the seven female students in the course read Young’s [28] paper on emotional intelligence,

perhaps not surprising given its title “Women, Naturally Better Leaders….”; 8 male students also

read this paper. The reading prompts asked students to reflect on their personal strengths and

weaknesses with regards to the leadership traits and attributes described in the paper. This

process of metacognition hopefully allowed each student to develop self-efficacy around

leadership (congruent with EVT), as well as personal plans for improvement. Many students

specifically planned to apply their leadership knowledge in the context of their upcoming

capstone design course.

Summary and Conclusions

This study began with an exploration of student opinions on the importance of leadership in their

future engineering career, relative to other knowledge/skills/attitudes. This is somewhat different

than the majority of previous surveys of leadership interest or value, which have generally not

been comparative. The comparative evaluation is important given that undergraduate students

have a limited amount of bandwidth in their curriculum, and are therefore likely to make

comparative judgements about where to focus their time and efforts. Leadership was rated

among the top five most important outcomes to their future careers by 28% of the senior civil

engineering students, resulting in a rank of 8th most important among the cohort as a whole. A

few students ranked leadership among the least important outcomes; EVT indicates that these

students are likely to be less motivated to learn about leadership. The limitations of the study

should be recognized. This data is limited to two years of civil engineering seniors attending a

single institution; institutional and curricular factors may influence student opinions, so the

results should not be considered representative of students at other institutions or in other

engineering majors. A higher percentage of male students than female students rated leadership

among the five most important outcomes. Differences of opinion were not found among students

who had/had not worked at an engineering internship or were participating in leadership-related

minors or formal activities.

Students’ perceptions of the relative importance of leadership in their future careers was higher

compared to civil engineering seniors at the same institution ~6 years earlier. The College of

Engineering at the institution increased its focus on leadership during this time, similar to

engineering education as a whole. Students commonly identified four required courses in the

civil engineering curriculum that contributed to their leadership knowledge and abilities, as well

as an array of co-curricular and extracurricular activities. The overall impact appears to be a

climate that fosters feelings of the importance of leadership for engineers.

Instructors who are engaged in teaching leadership may wish to consider educational theories

such as Expectancy Value Theory to undergird their teaching practices. Based on EVT an

instructor can work to ensure that students are aware of the intrinsic utility value of leadership

skills. This can be motivated by literature specific to their discipline, such as a relevant BOK. In

addition, faculty should work to build students’ self-efficacy around their ability to learn to be

effective leaders. Leadership skills can be taught and learned, with a variety of readings

discussing traits and behaviors that contribute to effective leadership. Metacognition via self-

reflection may encourage students to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses in regards to

leadership abilities, providing actionable items to improve their personal leadership abilities.

References

[1] National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New

Century. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2004.

[2] NSPE, National Society of Professional Engineers, Engineering Body of Knowledge, First

Edition. Alexandria, VA: NSPE, 2013, 60 pp.

[3] AIChE, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Body of Knowledge for Chemical

Engineers, Release 1.0. New York, NY: AIChE, 2015, 116 pp.

[4] ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the

21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future, Second Edition. Reston, VA:

ASCE, 2008, 181 pp.

[5] American Society for Engineering Education, ASEE. ASEE Papers on Engineering

Education Repository, PEER. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/advanced_search?q=leadership+&q_in%5B%5D=title&q_in%5B%5D

=conference_session_name&q_in%5B%5D=topics&q_in%5B%5D=divisions&collection_i

d=&year=&published_after=&published_before= [Accessed Dec. 6, 2017].

[6] ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering

Programs: Effectives for Reviews During the 2018-2018 Accreditation Cycle. Baltimore,

MD: ABET, 2017, 45 pp.

[7] NSPE, National Society of Professional Engineers, NSPE Position Statement 1752.

Engineering Education Outcomes. Alexandria VA: NSPE. Adopted April 2010. [Online].

Available: https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/take-action/position-

statements/engineering-education-outcomes Accessed Dec. 6, 2017.

[8] AAEE, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Environmental Engineering Body

of Knowledge. Annapolis MD: AAEE, 2009, 80 pp.

[9] ASME, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vision2030: Creating the Future of

Mechanical Engineering Education. New York, NY: ASME, Sept. 2012, 16 pp.

[10] IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Guide to the Software Engineering

Body of Knowledge, Version 3.0, IEEE Computer Society, P. Bourque and R.E. Fairley, eds.

New York, NY: IEEE, 2014.

[11] ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers. Civil Engineering Technologist Body of

Knowledge Task Committee Preliminary Report. Reston, VA: ASCE. 26 Oct. 2016. 29 pp.

[12] IEA, International Engineering Alliance, Graduate Attributes and Professional

Competencies, Version 3. 21 June 2013. 16 pp.

[13] ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge 3 Task

Committee. K.J. Fridley, Chair. BOK3 Constituent Survey. Dec. 2016.

[14] A. Wigfield and J.S. Eccles, “Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation,”

Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 68-81, 2000.

[15] J.S. Eccles and A. Wigfield, “Motivational beliefs, values, and goals,” Annual Review of

Psychology, vol. 53, pp. 109-132, 2002.

[16] Z.A. Khan, A. Nawaz, and I. Khan, “Leadership Theories and Styles: A Literature Review,”

Journal of Resources Development and Management, vol.16, pp. 7, 2016.

[17] R.G. Isaac, W.J. Zerbe, and D.C. Pitt, “Leadership and Motivation: The Effective

Application of Expectancy Theory,” Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 13 (2), pp. 212-226,

Summer 2001.

[18] GraphPad Software. QuickCalcs. Analyze a 2x2 contingency table. [Online]. Available:

https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/contingency1.cfm [Accessed Oct. 1, 2017].

[19] Vriens, I., G. Moors, J. Gelissen, J.K. Vermunt. 2017. Controlling for Response Order

Effects in Ranking Items Using Latent Choice Factor Modeling. Sociological Methods &

Research. 46 (2), 218-241.

[20] J.A. Krosnick, D.F. Alwin, “An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in

survey measurement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 51 (2), 201-219. 1987.

[21] A.R. Bielefeldt, “Student Perceptions of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge,”

Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference

& Exposition, Louisville KY, June 20-23, 2010. 13 pp.

[22] A.R. Bielefeldt, “Similarities and differences in architectural, civil, and environmental

engineering students’ perceptions of the body of knowledge,” Proceedings of the American

Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio

TX, June 10-13, 2012. Paper AC2012-3785. 19 pp.

[23] B.E. Barry, S.M. Katalenich, and B.C. McCoy, “Student perceptions of the civil engineering

body of knowledge,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education

(ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition. San Antonio TX, June 10-13, 2012. Paper AC

2012-3050. 18 pp.

[24] C. Atman, “Educating the well-rounded engineer: Insights from the Academic Pathways

Study,” Frontiers in Education Conference 2009. Center for the Advancement of

Engineering Education, University of Washington. 32 pgs. of presentation slides.

[25] S-U-R. Toor and G. Ofori, “Leadership versus Management: How They Are Different, and

Why,” Leadership and Management in Engineering, vol. 8 (2), pp. 61-71, 2008.

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2008)8:2(61)

[26] J. Knights, How to Develop Ethical Leaders. White Paper. New York, NY: Routledge,

Taylor & Francis Group LLC. pp. 2-10. 2016.

[27] R.E. Freeman and L. Stewart. Developing Ethical Leadership. Business Roundtable Institute

for Corporate Ethics. pp. 2-12. 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.corporate-

ethics.org/pdf/ethical_leadership.pdf.

[28] G. Young. Women, Naturally Better Leaders for the 21st Century. White Paper. New York,

NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group LLC. pp. 2-13. 2016.

[29] J. W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches,

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.

[30] C. Rottman, R. Sacks, A.E. Simpson, and D. Reeve, “Gendering Engineering Leadership:

Aspirations vs. Shoulder Tapping,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering

Education (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition. Seattle, WA, June 14-17, 2015. Paper

ID #11906, 10 pp.

[31] H.K. Ro and D.B. Knight, “Gender differences in learning outcomes from the college

experiences of engineering students,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 105 (3), pp.

478-507, 2016.

[32] M. Ostadalimakhmalbaf and D.R. Simmons, “Curricular and non-curricular factors

impacting development of leadership competencies in undergraduate civil engineering and

construction students,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education

(ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle WA, June 14-17, 2015. Paper ID #11916.

10 pp.

[33] D.R. Simmons, G. Young, S.G. Adams, and J.P. Martin, “Non-curricular activities help

African American students and alumni develop Engineer of 2020 traits: A quantitative

look,” Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual

Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis IN, June 15-18, 2014. Paper ID #8879. 16 pp.

[34] K.J. Fridley, D.B. Hains, L. Nolen, B.E. Barry, B.L. Hartmann, “It is time for a Third

Edition of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (BOK)?” Proceedings of the American

Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Columbus

OH, June 24-28, 2017. Paper ID #18002. 9 pp.