European Journal o f Engineering Education. 8 (1984) 329-343 329 Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V., Amsterdam -Printed in The Netherlands

Some difficulties in integrating large-group engineering courses

Prof. Ir. G.H.A. van Eyk University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

1. Introduction

The recent discussion' criticising conventional engineering curricula for neglecting design and extinguishing the creative skills of engineering students now seems to have become more than just a ritualistic com- ment on the education of engineers, as heard regularly during the last few decades but without the occurrence of any substantial change. Recently, several initiatives from engineering schools all over Western Europe towards changing their curricula for the better seem to have been undertaken, including an initiative to found a new type of "en- gineering" school in France2. The new engineering schools in Delft, The Netherlands, and CompiBgne, France, founded to create an "in- ghnieur-designer", must be considered as isolated "early birds" that were, most probably, introduced without an awareness of the move- ment that now appears to be emerging. The confusion between science and technology, as if the first were "pure" and the second "applied pureness", now seems to have been bypassed3, and a "respectable" science of design has emerged in the last few decades, opening the way for a "truly academic" study of engineering fundamentals.

In the 1920s and 1930s, engineering education no longer had the social status generated by the great engineers of the late nineteenth century. There came a call for reform to reinforce the prestige and quality of engineering courses. In 1930, the president of the Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology4 warned that "training in details has been unduly emphasised at the expense of the more powerful training in allembracing fundamental principles". In F'rance, in 1935, even more disapprobatory voices were heard about engineering educa- tions: "it isn't observation, it isn't personal reflection, it isn't science, the true and pure science with its intellectual disciplines, it is a thin varnish of mathematics, physics or chemics, easy to teach, easy to

0304-3797/84/$03.00 @ 1984 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Prof. Ir. G.HA. van Eyk received his degree in Mechanical Engineering in Delft in 1957 and made a career in business (Marketing Management, Consultancy and Management Training) before being appointed, in 1976. as Professor of Marketing at the School for Industrial Design Engineering of the University of Technology. Delft, The Netherlands. 'From 1976 to 1981 he chaired the School's Committee for Curriculum Planning. Since 1982, he has been Dean of Faculty.

learn, easy to justify in an examination; it is a miscellany of recipes and formulas not worth the name of empiricism . . . ". The remedy proposed a generation ago was to make engineering educa- tion "more scientific". On reflection, that is not so much of a surprise. The prestige of physics and mathematics was at that time - academical- ly speaking - very high. But now, as Herbert Simon [5] writes6, "engineering schools have become schools of physics and mathematics". With the further popularisation of scientific achievements after the second world war, even the remainders of design education were purged from engineering curricula. "Applied science" was a label that was often used, but the science--engineering relationship remained ambivalent. The analytical approach of the scientist, rewarding in many ways, left the engineering student, striving for synthesis and integra- tion, with an emptiness. Engineering had lost its identity; its confusion with science started.

Synthesis of the elements of various scientific disciplines and the in- tegration of scientific achievements and "inventions" into the lives of human beings was no longer taught7. Such essentials were encoun- tered only in odd periods of practical work within a company during academic holidays. These periods were increasingly neglected and finally abandoned due to lack of academic prestige and because of the inability of educationalists to stipulate "truly academic" learning objectives for integrative courses [7]. Recently, in a search for en- gineering curricula that would encourage innovation and entrepreneur- ship, Petty [8] observed that "many engineering faculty believe that creativity and innovation can be taught in exactly the same way that 'design' can be taught". These are, simply, the "situational conditions" arising from recent demand for truly integrated engineering courses and for more design skills.

The School for Industrial Design Engineering at the University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, being one of the "early birds", has been a pioneer in the field of integrating technical and nontech- nical study subjects since its foundation in 1969. Valuable experience

was obtained with small groups of students in the early years of the School, when personal contacts between students and staff - and most of all between staff - were most helpful in smoothing out flaws in the educational concept. The later years, however, witnessed a rapid growth in the number of f i t y e a r students from 50 to 160, which inexorably disclosed conceptual flaws that had previously remained hidden.

We do not claim to have discovered the final answer to all of the prob- lems, but have succeeded in formulating our objectives more precise- ly and in locating - also more - the hidden traps. These experiences have been presented previously in French only [9]. The present article, therefore, makes this knowledge available to a broader audience.

2. The relationship between engineering and design

In the relationship between engineering and design in education three mainstreams8 can now be distinguished. The first is industrial design, with a close relationship to art and an explicit care for wholeness. This mainstream is often wrongly judged as. nontechnical and/or "cos- metic" only. Because of such prejudices, most "academic" engineers fail to grasp the importance of this approach in their discipline. The second mainstream 'relates engineering and design in a purely technical sense. The function of the product to be designed is given as the start- ing point. Here designing means creative and intricate manipulation of the laws of physics, together with knowledge of components and manufacturing techniques, all to the end of finding optimal solutions - economic or otherwise - which fulfil the function. In engineering education the teaching of design is often, but wrongly. confused with the teaching of (analytical) scientific research methodology and the skills required for conducting scientific experiments. This confusion leads to neglect of the heuristic and integrative aspects of design methodology and, in consequence, impedes adequate teaching of design. Finally, the two "early birds" mentioned in the Introduction can be considered as the third mainstream, which takes an intermediate position. Rooted firmly in engineering science it also includes a broad examination of man-product relationships, not only in their strictly ergonomic sense but also including societal and cultural aspects. Design activity in this stream starts not only with a given function, it also in- cludes a definition of human or societal needs9.

3. Three approaches to curriculum planning and learning objectives

In whatever way the design aspects of an e n g i n e e ~ g course are con- ceived, it must be made clear that any engineering course must teach

integrative skills in addition to analytical skills. When planning an in- tegrative course, however, there appear to be alternative approaches in curriculum planning. Some are more and some are less conducive to com~lex educational obiectives such as "integrative skill". In

there is one group of approaches, highlyattractive to the technid mind. which drives the "obiectives-and-means" analysis so far that the objective of integration may easily be lost entireiy. Ac- cording to Davies [lo], three broad perspectives can be distinguished which reflect the development of educational thought in this century:

The classical or systematic approach. Efficiency of the teaching process is the prime concern. Clear and precise objectives, formulated in terms of measurable behaviour, are the only starting point for curriculum planning. The Tyler rationale [ll] can be summarised in four questions:

"What educational purposes should a school seek to attain?" "What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?" "How can these educational experiences be organised effectively?" "How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?"

This leads to an atomistic view, as developed in Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956). A full-grown example of this ap- proach is programmed instruction.

The romantic or humanistic approach. This approach represents an appeal for freedom rather than efficiency. Educational technology is considered to be "dehumanising". The student is seen as a fully func- tioning person (Maslow) with a positive image of self, open to ex- periences and able to relate to other people. Rogers, in Freedom to Learn [13], works out an authentic concept of this approach. The essential feature of the romantic perspective is that the leamer is the source of the curriculum, and the ultimate objective is the realisation of human growth or potential through the process of self-actualisation.

The classical- romantic or "modem" approach. This approach is not a simple amalgam of the classical and romantic points of view, for its assumptions are quite different. In its purest form, it assumes that students are natural decision-makers and problem-solvers. Appropriate- ness, rather than "eitheror" thinking, is a key concept. An investiga- tive attitude and leaming from experience are highly valued, and a pragmatic or problem-oriented view is the starting point for the cur- riculum. The role of learning objectives is relativised. Such a view, of course, destroys the essential polarity of the classical and romantic

points of view. It is clearly apparent that more complex educational objectives could easily be lost. James [14] distinguishes only three kinds of enterprise in which students should be engaged. These involve enquiry (exploration, experiment, explanation), making (inventing, designing, maintaining, doing) and dialogue (with material, objects, creatures, persons, self). De Groot [15], who distinguished learning ob- jectives and results that can be tested from those that can be reported or communicated in learner's reports, can also be seen as an exponent of this approach [16]. This third approach has been used predominant- ly in curriculum planning at Delft.

4. Objectives

Several years after the foundation of our School, namely. between 1977 and 1978, we reformulated our objectives more operationally and coherently than before, thus following the first approach above. We have gone as far as making a projection of "the young engineer" in the General Educational Objective (see Box 1). However, at the same time, we did not hesitate to describe quite complex skills, such as "will be able to manage and supenrise", that would surely present difficulties in objective assessment.

Box 1: The Geneml Educational Objectiue (objectives of first order)

At the end of the five-year course the engineer IDE has obtained the ability to contribute actively - in a middlesized industry and after a settling-in period of six months - to the design of durable consumer products and to decision- making concerning product policy. After some years of industrial experience he will be able to rnannge and supervise both processes.

The same. approach is also followed in the f i t part of the Specific Educational Objective (see Box 2), where our beliefs about the four important fields of knowledge are expounded. This, by itself, yields nothing new. Design courses always claim a broad education. In this case, however, we tried to specify more precisely what types and levels of knowledge and skill we believed to satisfy the General Objective. This is expressed in the first and last paragraphs. The problem, after all, concerns the integration process: every seasoned design teacher knows that disciplines taught in isolation are in danger of not being used adequately by students during design exercises. Careful planning, so as to have isolated disciplines preceding the relevant design exercises - as we practiced - is not enough to solve the problem. Motivation for isolated disciplines often comes only during design exercises, under which circumstances the concept of the wholeness of design may be

weakened as a student becomes fascinated by the discovery that a new aspect is "crucial".

Box 2: The Specific Educational Objective -Part One (objectives of second order)

At the end of the five-year course the engineer IDE has obtained knowledge of a theoretical and applied nature in the following fields:

o man-product relationships, physical as well as psychological; w technological physics and industrial manufacturing processes;

the appearance of products related to both historical and current aesthetic values; and

managerial, marketing, social and societal aspects of product innovation.

Most of all, however, he is skilled in introducing, handling and evaluating,this knowledge during individual and group design processes and able to incorporate this knowledge in decision-making.

We thus prefer a more equal and controlled balance of the-envisaged fields of knowledge. The chosen option, however, also reflects the received belief that theory should precede practice, which is only a half-truth and quite a dangerous one in engineering education when taken too far". How could we maintain our integration objective and, at the same time, answer more precisely the question of what subjects to teach and to what level? We found a solution in a formulation that is quite operable. It enumerates the skills of introducing. handling, evaluating and taking into account certain types of knowledge during final decision-making, but, at the same time, it refers to complex situa- tions such as "the individual and group design process".

Box 3: The Specific ~ d u c a t i 0 ~ 1 Objective -Part Two (objectives of second order)

At the end of the five-year course the engineer IDE has obtained insight i n b the basic theoretical and philosophical principles of the fields mentioned above, and self-knowledge. so as to be able, at least, to evaluate,'to accept or to reject newly offered knowledge thus to be capable of taking full responsibility for his own learning process as a professional engineer.

The second part of the Specific Educational Objective (see Box 3) had to be designed because there was still some doubt about the "truly academic character" of a course directed "only" towards performance in the first few months or years after graduation. The objective of a "truly academic" course would, unmodified, leave the door dangerous- ly open for contributory disciplines that strived for academic prestige only, while, at the same time, losing touch with the design discipline. This would endanger the real mission: integration into the design pro- cess. We solved this problem by recognising the objectives of part one

(see Box 2) as skills for "using tools", but at the same time we recog- nised the lack of skills necessary for "renewing tools", skills which we also expected from a professional designer. Part two (see Box 8) should specify these lacking skills. We avoided any doubt about the "truly academic character" of our course by deflning the young engineer as - - being "capable of taking full responsibility for his own learning process as a professional engineer", requiring "insight in the theoretical and

basic &=inc5iples" -of the various contributory subjects and "self-knowledge". This reflects Maslow's concept of the "fully functioning person", which is hardly a testable proposition. However, regarding the teachability of (or responsibility for) the learning process, some progress has been made [16,17].

5. Curriculum model

As mentioned above, we preferred a model with a balanced and con- trolled integration of the subjects taught before the integrative courses. In successive years new subjects are added to increase the breadth and depth of the design exercises (see Fig. 1). The objectives of each year and those of the design exercises run in parallel (see Boxes 4 and 5). This approach has two seiious difficulties, which were dealt with as follows.

Fig. 1.

Box 4: Objectiws of Each Course Year (objectives of third order)

At the end of the first yeor the student has been introduced to all aspects (fields of knowledge) of the discipline and to the design process as a systematic and creative process. Further, he has mastered the elementary auxiliary study sub- jects.

At the end of the second year the student has obtained insight into all aspects of the discipline and has obtained experience in the application in the design process of the aspects of "user's function" and "appearance". The acquisition of knowledge in the second year concentrates on "construction" and "produc- tion". Finally, the student has mastered the most important auxiliary study subjects.

At the end of the third year the student has obtained experience in applying all aspects in the design process. The application of "construction" and "pro- duction" has been emphasised. The acquisition of knowledge in the third year concentrates on marketing and organisational aspects of product development.

At the end of the fourth year the student has obtained experience in applying all aspects in the complete process of product development. The application of marketing and organisational aspects has been emphasised. The acquisition of knowledge in the fourth year concentrates on broadening the theoretical base of the discipline and on optional study subjects.

At the end of the fifth year the student has demonstrated that: he can go self-reliantly through the complete process of product development

in accordance with industrial practice; or he can self-reliantly investigate fields of knowledge of the discipline with

scientific methods.

The approach suggests (mainly to the student, but also to staff) that all that is required to embark on a design exercise is a knowledge of the subjects taught earlier. Any design exercise makes clear, how- ever, that this surmise is not valid. Much prereflective knowledge of many subjects must be mobilised to generate a "complete" design. Requiring (crucial) knowledge of untaught subjects, however, is hardly acceptable in a subculture believing that theory should always precede practice. As a consequence of this belief, most "academic" engineering curricula tend to delay their design courses until the later years, after "everything" has been taught. For the student, however, the move to integration then becomes even more difficult. He considers - and rightly so - the elementary exercises aiming at integration far too naive, unchallenging and not on a par with his acquired sophisticated knowledge of contributory subjects. This often leads to the removal of design from engineering curricula altogether. "Design" is then limited to the critical analysis of other engineers' artefacts, or to en-

Box 5: Objective# of Design Courses (objectives of third order)

F in t year (200 hm) Introduction to the structure of the product design project and obtaining acquaintance with its parts through elementary exercises.

Second year (250 hn) Design with emphasis on conception and materialisation seen mainly from the viewpoints of "user's function" and "appearance".'

Third year (340 hm) Design with emphasis on materialisation seen mainly from the "construction" and "production" angles.

Fourth year (4;30 hn) A complete process of product development with emphasis on the analytical phase. All aspects are represented, while marketing and organisational aspects are accentuated.

Fifth yeor (1300 hn) A complete development project or a research project into the aspects mentioned above. These projects follow industrial practice closely.

gineering problem-solving. This approach also "prohibits" design exercises in the first year: "nothing" has yet been taught. Nevertheless, it is by neglecting this prohibition that we solved the problem. In the f i t year - more precisely, in the first semester - the design course is based on "naive or prereflective knowledge", i.e., everything a young person of eighteen or twenty years old with a grammar school cer- tificate, and some bias for technology, "knows". With these "naive" ingredients the student learns and experiences the wholeness of the design process and obtains some degree of feeling for "method". He 'experiences how it is to design both individually and in a group, and what it means when a real object or model has to be made following all the abstract concepts and discussions. He also experiences the fascination of engineering problem-solving, which forms part of the exercises. Only in later years, after more formal courses in various subjects and "methods", is he required to integrate these subjects, with the result of a much higher standard of design sophistication.

The second difficulty of the chosen approach concerns the integra- tion of subjects after they have been taught. There are two traps. On the one hand, a new subject can tend to dominate design exercises, thus reducing the integrative exercise to, for example, ergonomic problem-solving or management exercises. On the other hand, if a new subject is not used at all, the student seems to ignore the new knowl- edge" and persists in the prereflective and naive approach of the first semester, not achieving the higher standards now possible.

These traps are avoided primarily by appropriate coaching of the design staff. For that very reason the various staffs comprise not only generalists but also specialists having major responsibility and back- ground in one of the contributory subjects. This, however, has proved to be not enough. To keep the design exercises truly integrative, stu- dents also have to go through specific application courses in each subject (see Fig. 1). This matures the student's knowledge of the sub- ject in the context of a design assignment, thus avoiding the traps of negligence or dominance. We are willing to accept a certain accentua- tion of contributory subjects in a design exercise, but dominance is unacceptable.

"An integrative course", it is easy to say so. Any l'ecturer, however, who has tried to implement this approach in a university course knows of the inherent difficulties and obstacles. Integrative courses in uni- versities, therefore, do not last long if there is not explicit pressure from professional practice, as with, for example, medical doctors or clinical psychologists. Integrative university curricula too often tend to fragment into isolated subjects "easy to teach, easy to learn, easy to justify in an examinati~n"~. Every now and then, there is an effort

rkstablish integration. I believe that such an effort is now emerging in engineering curricula, not surprisingly coincident with the lasting recession".

We in our School have not found the final solution for the above prob- lems. We only know several hidden traps. We believe that there are, after all, only two cures:

to specify educational objectives - including those of integration - operationally and coherently, in order to resist the incessant erosion caused by a drive for perfectly measurable 'elementary objectives, cherished so much by analytical and bureaucratic minds;

to be aware that there is no rigid formula to counteract the anti- integrative tendency in our universities: its origins are too deeply rooted in our bureaucratic, educational and academic culture.

In small schools integrative courses do not seem to lead to problems so long as some key lecturers maintain their own integrative spirit. In larger schools, in particular where the rational behaviour of students trying to "pass exams" rather than "learning" adds to the existing problemd3, it is much harder to keep the integrative spirit. Clear objectives are the best support for maintaining that spirit.

6. How much of a contributory subject is sufficient?

Finally, another specific theme in relation to integrative courses has to be mentioned. We call it the theme of the "qualified partner" (French: "interlocuteur valable"), but its scope is much wider than expected. It starts with the conception that an industrial designer, or an engineering designer, should be equipped with knowledge of non- technical subjects or technical subjects foreign to his own specialisa- tion in engineering. Moreover, he is expected to integrate these sub- jects in his project work whether as an individual or in a team. The question is, again, that of what subjects to teach and to what level. Here we must examine educational objectives with reffard to con- tributory subjects. It is easy to call in a specialist to give students "a certain base". But do courses such as "The Principles of Ergonomics" or "Introduction to Sociology" or "Advanced Mathematics" give students the required base? The answer is, definitely, no! They do not, and, moreover, there is a risk of impairing the integrative course. What is, then, the problem?

We require an engineer (designer) to be able to cooperate with any discipline - whether technical or nontechnical --he may need in order to complete a design project. What does this mean in terms of the formulation of objectives for specialised courses in contributory sub- jects? Ideally, a designer will have the following attributes:

he will be aware of the existence of the relevant specialiition and of its possible contribution to the design;

he will be able to decide whether to engage external help or whether to proceed on a "do-it-your-self" basis when needing a particular specialisation in a given situation;

he will know how to engage, to continue and effectively to fialise cooperation with various specialists, which means that he should be a "qualified partner" to such specialists: this requires - apart from certain social skills -- specific knowledge of the relevant specialisation, sufficient for him to be considered as a "qualified partner" and to be able to ask appropriate questions; too much knowledge, however, is neither efficient nor effective, and hampers the creation of a challeng- ing climate.

These three considerations help in finding rational objectives for the subjects the school chooses to teach. For nontaught subjects, young engineers should at least be equipped with certain "rules" about how

to prepare themselves in case of necessity. After all, we expect a design- er to integrate not only knowledge that has been taught, but also any- thing else he comes across - or may be confronted with - that might improve his design.

I t is, however, very hard to find specialist staff able to teach the re- quired specific knowledge, while courses by nonspecialists, for example, designers, may lack sophistication and relevance. Too often, specialists teach only the principles and methods of their discipline, or con- centrate on sophisticated details, related too vaguely, or not at all, to the design problem. Application to the design process, under these circumstances, is left completely as the responsibility of students. After some t i e the school discovers that students are no longer in- terested in the subject, and, in my opinion, rightly so. Engineering students, after all, do not follow specialised courses for "general cul- tural education". They will lose interest if their real problem is neglect- ed. The next step in this scenario will be more general complaints about the "noneffectiveness" of including a specialised topic in an integrative design course. Depending on the social status of the sub- jectI4 within the engineering culture, the complaints will be dealt with by one of the following reactions: (a) the subject is eliminated for "lack of significance", or (b) the subject is apportioned a larger share of time while the specialist retains the same teaching habits. In both cases, the integrative course, as a whole, is impaired.

It would seem that there is only on$ effective way to answer the ques- tion of what shall be taught and to what level, which is to involve specialist teachers personally in the design course as staff members, so that students are coached in applying and integrating each specialisa- tion. This is the best schooling for any specialist who really wants his subject to contribute to design.

With teacher specialists included on the design staff, students gradually learn how to manage and exploit specialists to their advantage without letting them destroy the wholeness of their design, and thus improving their skills as "qualified partners". However, the problem of which specialisations are to be integrated in a design course continues to present difficulties15. This reflects, most probably, the real-world situation, and thereby stimulates learning beyond tangible learning objectives.

7. Summary

In this article, an example has been given of a.set of objectives aiming at effective integration. Some thoughts have been developed concerning

how, and to what level, contributory subjects should be taught. The difficulties encountered in integrative courses are manifold, but can be reduced to a few core problems. There is, first of all, much prejudice based on an academic tradition in engineering education as to what subjects should or should not be taught, and in what way. This tradi- tion is not conducive to integration. Further, there is the problem of formulating objectives for integration and the selection of an educa- tional model, with the underlying difficulty that the various approaches to curriculum planning also entail integration in different ways. More precisely, the approach to curriculum planning most popular in the engineeringlscience teaching subculture at universities is, at the same time, the least conducive to integration. Finally, there is also the "real-world" observation that engineering curricula are no longer con- sidered truly satisfactory: the societal function of engineering educa- tion is at stake.

8. Conclusions

Is the emerging dissatisfaction depicted in the Introduction the prelude to a more fundamental change in engineering curricula as distinct £rom more.general university curricula? My personal belief is, that if such a change is forthcoming, then "design" and "integrative" courses will be fundamental16. I t is from this perspective that I have written this article as a case of "curriculum planning". This perspective is all the more plausible because, in the last decade, definite progress has been made concerning the nature of design, which is for many a scientist, and wrongly so, just a soft and intuitive notion. Educationalists' con- cepts have also broadened so as to include more complex learning objectives. Evolving effective design curricula now seems feasible. It is a challenge to put these into practice and, at the same time, to get away from the fragmented academic courses engineering is seen to suffer from.

Notes

1 For further observations, see Refs. 1-3. 2 The Ecole Nationale Superieure de Creation Industrielle (Les Ateliers, 46--48

rue Saint-Sabin. Paris 75011). 3 The correction of this misconception seems to have emanated from many

sources a t the same time: see, for example. Ref. 4. 4 Karl Taylor Compton, in his presidential inaugural address at MIT, 1930

(quoted by Simon (Ref. 5, p. 131)). 5 Raoul Dautry, in a conference Que Faire de Nos 50 000 Ingenieurs, in January,

1935 (quoted in L'Architecture d'lnge'nieun, XIXe--XXe Sidcles, Centre de la Creation Industrielle (CCI), Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1978).

6 Simon has stated: "In view of the key role of design in professional activity, it is ironic that in this century the natural sciences have almost driven the

sciences of the artificial from professional school curricula" (Ref. 5, pp. 129- 130). The call for the integration of engineering into the lives of human beings is not new. Von Queis [6 ] quotes from sources as early as 1910. These three mainstreams- became clear to me during a SEFI Seminar on Indus- trial Design and the Training of Engineers, in Compi&gne, April, 1981, a true meeting between industrial designers and engineering designers [ I ] . This distinction between usual engineering design and the approach of our School was suggested by Prof. J. Eekels during a private conversation in Delft, December 11, 1982. Page has stated: "Through the pedagogical effects of careful coordination, the more rapidly maturing sandwich student by contrast with the fulltime student is afforded the invaluable opportunity of consciously rec~gnizing the creative interaction between theory and practice in the totality of the educational ex- perience" (Ref. 7. p. 271). The underlying notion is apparently that a student studies for examination rather than for application or practice. See also, Note 13. If the present recession is regarded as a phase of a Kondratiev cycle, a shift from science to technology can be expected [18]. Karlsson [19] refers to a project started in 1979 at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm to study the examination game: ". . . The most important course in engineering education cannot be found in any official document". Mathematics, for example, ranks very high in the pecking order of subjects, which leads to an excess in most engineering curricula. This excess, alas, does not necessarily mean that these engineering curricula contain sufficient, a d e quate or appropriate mathematics. Our teacher specialists have, legally, a double task: part-time as researchers for the advancement of their (single) discipline, and part-time as lecturers. Teaching in multidisciplinary courses, and in teams, is foreign to academic tradition and alien to bureaucratic standards. "During a survey of engineering schools in Europe and the U.S.A., it became apparent to the author that many engineering faculty believe that creativity and innovation can be taught in exactly the same way that 'design' can be taught. Indeed the area of design in engineering presents an ideal medium for the development of creative engineers" (Ref 8. p. 59).

References

van Eyk. G.H.A. (1981). A Problem of Communication. Leadership o r Scholaa- ticism? Report on the SEFI Seminar on Industrial Design and the Tmining of Engineers. Compi6gne. France. April 1-3, 1981. Eindhoven: Unpublished report, 7 pp. van Eyk. G.H.A. (1983). "Design opleiding Delft". KIO Bulletin. Vol. 6 7 , (March 1983), pp. 14-15. Maring. K.J. and Brikkenaar van Dijk, A.M., eds. (1982). The Education of the Engineer for Innovative and Entrepreneurial Activity. Proceedings of the 1982 Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education. Delft. The Netherlands. June 23-25. 1982 (Conference Edition). Delft: Delft Univer- sity Press. Hanson, D. (1982). The New Alchemists. Boston: Little, Brown. Simon. H.A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artifiial (2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

6 von Queis, D. (1982). "Fachausbildung und Allgemeinbildung: ein Wandel in Bemf und Ausbildung des Ingenieurs?", pp . 207-213 in K.J. Maring and A.M. Brikkenaar van Dijk, eds., The Education o f the Engineer for Innouatiue and Entrepreneurial Actiuity. Proceedings o f the 1982 Conference o f the European Society for Engineering Education, Delft. The Netherlands June 23-25, 1982 (Conference Edition). Delft: Delft University Press.

7 Page. C.W. and King, M.C. (1982). "New penpectives for sandwich courses after twenty-five years", pp. 269--275 in K.J. Maring and A.M. Brikkenaar van Dijk, eds.. The Education o f the Engineer for Innouatiue and Entrepreneur- ial Activity. Proceedings o f the 1982 Conference o f the European Society for Engineering Education, Delft, The Netherlands. June 23-25. 1982 (Con- ference Edition). Delft: Delft University Press.

8 Petty. E.R. (1982). "Engineering curricula for encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship". pp. 59-71 in K.J. Maring and A.M. Brikkenaar van Dijk. eds., The Education o f the Engineer for Innouatiue and Entrepreneurial Ac- tiuity. Proceedings o f the 1982 Conference o f the European Society for En- gineering Education. Delft. The Netherlands, June 23-25. 1982 (Conference Edition). Delft: Delft University Press.

9 van Eyk. G.H.A. (1982). "L'Cducation de l'ing6nieur-designer P Delft: quel- ques faits et pendes". Lecture for the Colloque National sur I'Enseignement de la Conception de Produits en France. Paris. March 23-24, 1982 (unpub- lished paper), 9 pp.

10 Davies, I.K. (1976). Objectiues in Curriculum Design. London: McGraw-Hill. 11 Tyler, R. (1949). Basic Principles o f Curriculum ond Instruction. Chicago:

University o f Chicago Press. 12 Bloom, B.S. (Editor) (1956). Taxonomy o f Educational Objectiues: The

classification o f educational goals. Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain, New York: Mckay.

13 Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus. OH: Merrill. 14 James, C. (1968). Young Lives at Stake. London: Collins. 15 de Groot, A.D. (1974). "To what purpose, to what effect? Some problems o f

method and theory in the evaluation o f higher education", pp. 16--44 in W.A. Verreck, ed., Methodological Problems in Research and Development in Higher Education. Proceedings o f the Inaugural EARDHE Congress, Rotter- dam. December. 1973. Amsterdam: Swets a n d Zeitlinger.

16 van Eyk, G.H.A. (1983). "The writing o f learning experiences as a teaching tool", paper presented at the Design Policy Conference. Royal College of Art. London. July. 1982. (Proceedings t o be published in 1983).

17 van Eyk. G.A.H. (1982). "Can 'going solo' be taught?" pp . 300--307 in K.J. Maring and A.M. Brikkenaar van Dijk, eds., The Education o f the Engineer for Innouatiue and Entrepreneurial Activity. Proceedings o f the 1982 Conference o f the European Society for Engineering Education. Delft, The Netherlands. June 23-25. 1982 (Conference Edition). Delft: Delft University Press.

18 van Duijn, J.J. (1983). The Long Wave in Economic Life. London: Allen and Unwin.

19 Karlsson, G. (1982). "Cuts in resources can give us a better engineering educa- tion", European Journal o f Engineering Education 7 : 87--90.