University of Kansas (KU) Visit - December 8th & 9th 2008

On December 8th &9th I spent two informative days at the University of Kansas (KU), my eighth sabbatical visit. Thanks to the efforts of Tom Mulinazzi and Craig Adams (Department Head) I met eight faculty currently teaching the design aspects of the AE program and others as well. As on my previous trips everyone was welcoming and helpful, making my visit both productive and enjoyable.

What did I learn?

About the KU Architectural Engineering (ArcE) program

•  It's a five year program Bachelors program with longstanding ties to the Architecture program, ties that the department wishes to strengthen again.
• Many faculty are proud of this tie and feel that it distinguishes their program from most other ArcE programs.
• Administratively it has an unusual history.  
• Until recently it was an independent program reporting jointly to the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, and also the Engineering School.  
• In 2001 it moved fully to engineering as part of the newly renamed department of Civil, Environmental & Architectural Engineering.  
• Students for the ArcE program are still admitted by the Architecture program.
• Of the 24 tenure-track faculty in the department the ArcE faculty 5-6 would probably state that their primary identification is as ArcE faculty.
• There are also several full-time auxiliary faculty who are important to the program.

Teaching Methods and Curriculum

• Although the number of Architecture studio courses has decreased in recent years, there's still a strong architectural studio experience in the first two years with studios similar to those for architecture students although now taught separately with higher student-faculty ratios for ArcE's. 
• Design in some form is present throughout the student's five years
• There are design problems in the first year introduction to Architectural Engineering course
• Architectural design starts in the first year and extends through the sophomore year
• Students take discipline design classes in the intermediate years and have design problems as part of some of the discipline analysis courses
• The capstone design sequence is two semesters long - 6 credits each semester and thus intense
• The first semester is organized sequentially into three parts addressing structures; mechanical; electrical (power) & lighting
• In the second semester students choose an discipline area in which to specialize
• The program offer four emphasis areas which are achieved by selection in the capstone sequence and through electives selected by the students.
• Building Environmental Systems (HVAC, energy, acoustics)
• Lighting/Electrical
• Building Construction Engineering and Management
• Building Structural Systems
• AE students must take the FE exam to graduate
• There is graduate study in the department for ArcE's with the MS in ArcE and the PhD in Civil.  
• It's also possible, and encouraged, to continue on to a Master of Architecture - currently 2-3 students per year follow this option.
• The faculty take pride in preparing students for industry.
• They take advantage of industry contacts (primarily from Kansas City) as adjuncts, consultants in the design classes, and as full-time auxiliaries.
• There is also considerable pride on the quality of their teaching as a group.
• Faculty identified use of many teaching methods
• Lecture in many classes - often spiced with field trips and guest lecturers.
• Studio in Architecture
• Modified studio in several classes
• Case Study - as examples in lecture classes

AE Content Issues

• Balance of curiculum ingredients
• In my conversations I found a number of different views on the appropriate balance of  curriculum agreements
• The strongest, though not unanimous, belief was that the architecture emphasis was important
• Structures was perceived as being the dominant curriculum element and discipline emphasis by some, with a desire for more MEP
• There's an effort to reestablish a former strength in lighting
• Sustainability
• Faculty cited multiple elements related to sustainability in the current curriculum although it isn't explicitly emphasized .
• BIM
• There will be a new BIM course next term.
• Other than that it wasn't generally perceived as particularly important by most faculty although several tied it, sustainability and economic design together as jointly important.
• Coordination with Other departments and Programs
• As noted above the relationship with the architecture program is considered highly important and there is considerable effort to improve it.
• There was little mention of a desire to establish relationships with other departments (although some are doing so) or institutions.

Students

• Departmental Enrollment is approximately as follows
• 240 Civil Engineers
• 175 Architectural Engineers
• ?? Environmental Engineers
• ArcE graduates work approximately as follows:
• Construction & Structures each 1/3
• MEP 1/6
• Other 1/6
• Admission for ArcE students is fairly selective
• They are limited by the places available in the initial architectural studios
• An estimate was that only 1 in 3 is admitted
• They have high ACT scores, amongst the highest in all engineering
• There is considerable encouragement to get international experience
• There are study-abroad relationships with Newcastle University in Australia as well as a new one with Leeeds in the UK.

Observations

• The administrative changes in the department disrupted its operation for a number of years, but there is now a sense of optimisim and a desire to continue what all regard as as strong, unique tradition.
• As is the case at many of the other institutions I've visited there in some curiousity about the results of my study, but there's little apparent interest in significant cooperation with other Architectural Engineering programs.
• I believe that this is the case for most of the programs because there's little benefit perceived to come from such cooperation and because there's a significant rivalry with nearby instutitions.

Missouri University of Science and Technology - 12/4-5 Visit

On December 4-5 I spent two worthwhile days at Missouri University of Science and Technology (MS and T), my seventh sabbatical visit. Thanks to the efforts of Stuart Baur I met seven faculty currently teaching the design aspects of the AE program and others as well. As on my previous trips everyone was welcoming and helpful, making my visit both productive and enjoyable.

What did I learn?

About the MS&T program

•  It's young – established in 2001, accredited 2005
  

• It was created because a study showed that previously many Missouri residents were leaving the state to get an ArchE education and as a way to increase university enrollment without a major resource commitment.
  

• It's growing – started at about 30 students and now about 90 entering as freshmen and 150 in the last two years (compared to about 225 in CivE)
  
  
  
  • The enrollment seems to be stabilizing, although if it grows there could be implications for faculty needs and class sizes.
    
• It's undergraduate and teaching focused
  
  
  
  • They pride themselves on small (<30) class sizes
    
• They're in a strong department (Civil, Architectural and Environmental) which has:
  
  
  
  • Very loyal, supportive alumni – the amounts of money raised directly from alumni by the department amazed me
    
  • A handsome new (2001) building with excellent teaching and research spaces
    
  • A strong, long-established, diverse civil engineering curriculum
    
    
    
    • Civil structural students actually take fewer structures courses than ArchE students
      
• An unusual university structure – there are no deans
• A faculty appointment system that explicitly recognizes their program affiliation. Out of 23 tenure track faculty
  
  
  
  • Two in-department tenure track are 100% ArchE
  • One is about 70% ArchE
  • Others are partially ArchE if they teach courses ArchE's take
• Tenure and promotion criteria address teaching and research approximately equally with service valued as well.
  
• There is also support from faculty in other departments as well as adjunct faculty.
  
  
  
  • Because of a Missouri-Kansas agreement there are no Architecture programs in the public system
    
    
    
    • This means that MS&T had to hire two architects to teach the architectural portion of the ArchE program
      
    • Tenure and promotion criteria are the same as for other departmental faculty, a source of some uncertainty.
      

Teaching Methods and Curriculum

• The curriculum is still evolving
  
  
  
  • It started at 138 credits, but has been reduced to 128 credits by university mandate
    
    
    
    • At that level most students take about 4-1/2 years to graduate
      
• Students are offered four concentration options although there is no official declaration process: Structures, Building Systems; Construction Engineering and Project Management, and Construction Materials
  
  
  
  • These concentrations are achieved by the students choosing their two “technical electives” in one of the three areas
    
  • They may also use their two “free electives” if they wish to specialize even more
    
• Architectural and/or Architectural Engineering design experiences occur in three classes (203, 204, 205), the one-semester capstone class (298) as well as discipline-specific design experiences in other courses.
  
  
  
  • Senior (capstone) design is organized in teams of approximately a dozen students working on a “real” project. Each student has an individual design task (IDT) and individual presentation in addition to the group presentation given by the team leader whose IDT is the project management.
    
  • All of these classes are taught in what I would call a “modified studio” method
    
• HVAC, acoustics and electrical courses are taught by faculty from other departments
  
  
  
  • There is some concern about how to continue these courses since the current faculty may become unavailable in the near future, with no tenure-track replacements likely from the departments. The department is advertising for an MEP faculty and is considering distance education options (an initial effort that way was not a success, but it may be revisited).
    

AE Content Issues

• Sustainability
  
  
  
  • This is perceived as an significant area, with more organization desirable
    
  • It's included in several courses already
    
  • One faculty is pursuing LEED certification
    
  • The Solar Decathlon competition has been important both because of strong student involvement and because it has led to several courses (electives) being developed
    
• BIM
  
  
  
  • The general attitude is “wait-and-see” with a number of faculty thinking it is a fad or a mere skills course that would better be taught at a trade school such as Rolla Technical Institute (RTI).
    
• Bachelors + 30
  
  
  
  • As with BIM, the general attitude is “wait-and-see” with the many changes of definition and apparent goals being noted.
    
• Student Ethics
  
  
  
  • Ethics arose at least once as an area needing attention – particularly the problems of copying work
    

Students

• The program has no special selection criteria or enrollment cap
  
  
  
  • MS&T is fairly selective as an institution, with the 2^nd highest ACT scores in the state.
    
• Students are very involved with student organizations and service
  
  
  
  • There are multiple strong student organizations including: AEI; Engineers Without Borders; Solar Decathlon.
    
  • Students have a service requirement – which (at least in part) involves fund-raising telephone solicitations to alumni
    
  • The institution has a strong supporting role – there is a campus center, with plans for a new building to support such activities
    
• Graduates of the ArchE (and department) pursue careers approximately as follows:
  
  
  
  • Construction – 30%
    
  • Structures 30%
    
  • Graduate studies 10%
    
  • Other – balance
    
• Work Experience
  
  
  
  • Students generally have some work experience in the field while they at MS&T
    
    
    
    • About 95% have a summer work experience, at least once
      
    • About 20% have a CoOp work term at some point
      
  • The faculty find this experience valuable
    

Observations

• Attitudes about AE Design
  
  
  
  • Most faculty believe that “AE Design” is a valid concept and that it involved working with more than a single system. Beyond that there was considerable diversity of definitions.
    
• Need for faculty in MEP disciplines
  
  
  
  • As noted above, while they have been fortunate in finding faculty from other departments, most of these faculty are likely to become unavailable in the near future. There is considerable concern, as at other institutions, about how to get these faculty. The problems that they see are:
    
    
    
    • Where to find such faculty because they are in short supply
      
    • How to make them “tenurable” given the institution's requirements and the general research atmosphere.
      
  • They are explicitly considering distance learning options despite an unfavorable initial experience.
    
    
    
    • Some faculty question the effect of this approach on the students, at least in core concentration areas.
      

About my Sabbatical Project

• Importance of Department Structure
  
  
  
  • For the first time I explicitly posed a question as part of my discussion whether it might be the case that independent “AE departments are likely to have stronger scholarly focus and success compared to those programs” that are combined with others in the departmental structure.
    
  • The response that I received was that it might be the case, but that it wasn't feasible for a variety of reasons including external funding resources.
    

University of Nebraska-Lincoln in Omaha - Peter Kiewit Institute - 12/2/2008

On 12/2/2008 I visited the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Architectural Engineering program, my sixth sabbatical trip. Thanks to the efforts of Clarence Waters I interviewed six faculty currently teaching in the AE program, the executive director of the Peter Kiewit Institute Winnie Callahan, and others as well.  As on my previous trips everyone was welcoming and helpful, making my visit both productive and enjoyable.

What did I learn?

About the Architectural Engineering program

• It's young – they just celebrated their 10^th birthday
  
• It's an accredited Masters program – though students may leave with an unaccredited bachelors degree after four years
  
• It's very selective – because of the masters degree there is a cutoff of a 3.0 GPA at the beginning of the third year
  
  
  
  • Because of this cutoff the retention rate within the program from freshman to final year was reported to me as 30%
    
• It's growing – there enrollment is currently about 300 students (counting those not yet past the cuttoff) and increasing.
• They have superb facilities – the Peter Kiewit Institute (PKI) in which they are housed, is designed to expose all the building systems and allow their use in classes.
• They are well supported – Thanks to the support of the Omaha business community, particularly Mr. Walter Scott, the AE program is well supported financially and has working ties to the very large AE firms community.
• They're eager to interact with other AE programs – perhaps through distance learning exchanges (they have excellent facilities).
  
  
  • In particular, they're eager to attract excellent faculty thanks to their pattern of growth and good support.
• Their administrative structure is unusual
  
  
  • They're part of the Peter Kiewit Institute which incorporates elements of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and University of Nebraska at Omaha as well as a large and very successful business partnership program.
  • They're part of the UNL college of engineering, but they're not officially a department – the relationship is through the Pieter Kiewit Institute.
• Their explicit tenure and promotion criteria for most faculty are 50% teaching, 40% research, 10% service. So far as I could tell these criteria were used explicitly in at least the annual evaluations of faculty.
• They're very proud of what they're doing – with good cause so far as I can see.

Teaching Methods and Curriculum

• Their major focus is building energy systems, though structure is an option. The also have one of the few acoustic emphases in AE programs.
• It's a five-year program because it's a Master's program
  
  
  • Anticipation of the move towards the masters as a first professional degree was a key factor in setting up the curriculum.
• They have, and make good use of, excellent laboratory capabilities in all the disciplines.
• Because they're part of the the PKI they have extraordinary opportunities to work with the large and successful group of AE firms in Omaha.
  
  
  • They take advantage of that through site visits and professional involvement in classes.
  • This involvement is particularly important in their capstone design class (5^th year) where each team of students works with an industry team involving all disciplines that meets with the students throughout the semester.
• Construction Engineering (not Management) is another member of the PKI with strong ties to the AE program.

AE Content Issues

• BIM is being introduced into classes, but it does not appear to have a high importance in their thinking.
  
• Similarly, sustainability issues are certainly present because of the energy systems focus, but they were not emphasized by any of the faculty in our conversations.
  
• The faculty were quite happy with they way they've had the opportunity to shape their program and did not raise any other content issues.
  

Students

• As noted above the program is highly selective. As a result, the student test scores (ACT) are the highest in the college of engineering.
  
  
  
  • Despite predictions that there would be trouble attracting good students, that has not been the case.
    
• There seems to be a high level of student activity outside classes. I noticed five or six student organizations with active programs, including AEI.
  

Observations

• As what I've recorded above indicates, this program is unusual in many ways: youth, support, selectivity, emphasis, degree accredited.
  
• They have a clear mission that has support from faculty, students (I deduce), the PKI institute and the Omaha business community.
  
• One opportunity that they have not yet embraced that is inherent in the PKI mission is a close collaboration with the Information Technology branch of the PKI – a collaboration that was explicitly intended by the founders of the PKI.
  
• A repeated topic of conversation was the tension between Omaha and Lincoln. This tension has been evident in many ways, starting with the founding of the PKI and continuing today.
  
• If I were a mobile faculty member with both a research and teaching interest this would be a very attractive location.
  

About my Sabbatical Project

• The importance of the administrative structure and the support of the larger community were again emphasized.
• The difference between four-year and five-year program's ability to explore technical issues in depth was also again apparent.

Penn State Visit - November 17-18 2008

On November 17th & 18th I visited Penn State, my fifth sabbatical trip. Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Chimay Anumba (department head) and Kevin Parfitt I interviewed 11 faculty and discussed this sabbatical topic with about five others at lunch on the 18th.  As on my previous trips everyone was welcoming and helpful, making my visit both productive and enjoyable.

What did I learn?

About the Penn State program. It is:

• Big: 500 undergraduates plus graduates students; 18 full time faculty
  
  
  
  • this is in keeping with Penn State - 44,000 (corrected 11/21/2008) students on this campus I was told
• Old: It was founded in 1910
• Independent: it's in it's own department in the college of engineering
• Proud: It claims (with much evidence to support it) that it is the "preeminent" AE program
• Forward looking: it has been working with BIM and sustainability for some years. It has identified "High Performance Buildings" as a focus area incorporating both of these topics.

Teaching Methods and Curriculum

• The undergraduate curriculum offers 4 tracks, covering all of the generally accepted AE sub-disciplines with students graduating in the following approximate percentages (corrected 11/21/2008):
  
  
  • 
    
    

    Structures	35%
    Construction Management	35%
    HVAC	15%
    Electrical/Lighting	15%

• The fifth year of the program allows considerable depth, including 4 semesters of architectural design.
• About 50% of the students pursue a bachelors+masters program - again made easy by the 5th year
• There is a strong emphasis on meeting the needs of industr
  
  
  • A few faculty felt there was too much such emphasis
• The emphasis in design classes, particularly Senior Thesis (year-long), is on individual rather than team projects
  
  
  
  • There are team projects in prior classes
  • Students are explicitly required to demonstrate both depth in a discipline area and breadth by work in two other areas
• Design Teaching are primarily what I would call "studio" and "Modified Studio"
• In other classes there is a significant amount of hands-on lab work as well computer software.
• "Practitioner Instructor" faculty are an important resource to the department, bringing industry experience to the mix.
• The department is monitoring the Bachelor's + 30 goal of ASCE
  
  
  
  • They feel that they meet the intent of the criteria already although there is concern about specific wording issues.

Issues

• BIM (Revit Architecture) has been part of the curriculum for about five years and is rapidly becoming the primary tool, with plans to expand to Revit Structural and MEP.
• Sustainability is at the heart of the department's mission statement and is incorporated into many of the classes
  
  
  
  • Construction Management Faculty seem to be leading in the both the BIM and sustainability areas, though the HVAC and Lighting faculty have long been concerned about sustainability issues.(corrected 11/21/2008)
    
• The university reward (Tenure and Promotion) system concerns many of the faculty
  
  
  
  • A number feel some variation (there was considerable variety) of the sense that what is important to industry and their graduates is not what is rewarded by the T&P system.
  • Others felt that that the teaching loads prevented their pursing what was important to them and the reward system - research
• The department has good, cooperative relationships with both Civil Engineering and Architecture for both course offerings and some research projects.

Students

• Penn State is a highly selective program
  with a capped enrollment of 100 students per year
  
  
  
  • Students are admitted only after having achieved at least a 3.0 average in their first year at the university
• Their attrition rate from the program is negligible from 2nd through 5th year.
• The relative numbers of Structural, Mechanical and Electrical graduates are recognized not to match the job opportunities in industry.
  
  
  
  • Since all their graduates receive multiple job offers this is not a high priority issue.
• The fall-semester Penn State Job Fair is the big hiring opportunity. The number of firms attending (166 this year) far outnumbers the students (~100)
  
  
  
  • Firms have found that hiring interns from the fair is an excellent way to hire graduates ultimately.
  • Professors value the internship experience of their students.
  • NCAT and Tennessee State both participate in the Job Fair
• About 30% of the students are female.

Observations

• Few of the faculty expressed much interest in how other AE programs
  operate or the Architectural Engineering Institute (AEI).
  
  
  
  • Some expressed interest in arriving at a more specific definition of AE for accreditation purposes
  • It's my belief that Penn State has much to offer other AE programs and that there might well be things they could learn beneficially as well.
• While the research efforts and graduate program are not the focus of my study, I'd note that both seem to be very healthy and well organized.
• As noted in the introduction, Penn State is a very proud institution that believes it is preeminent in AE education. Since I haven't visited all the AE programs yet I couldn't proclaim a "best", but everything I saw impressed me. I came away with definite ideas about how to improve my own program.

About my Sabbatical Project

• What Jay Pluckett had first suggested to me was reemphasized on this visit, that it's important to distinguish between four-year and five-year programs in any analysis. It's clear that the extra year offers many opportunities for increased depth and breadth.
• I'll also be looking at the difference between stand-alone and combined program departments (e.g. Civil + AE + xxx).

Learning about Qualitative Research

If you're an engineer who thinks of undertaking a similar "qualitative research" project this post may be of interest to you.  My intent is to reflect on the self-education process I've undertaken and recommend a book that I found helpful.
   
As a person who thinks of himself as an engineer first, with other interests riding well behind, I undertook this sabbatical project in what now seems a naïve way. My belief was that I would create a survey and talk to faculty at the relevant institutions (all 17 accredited AE schols) and write up the state-of-the-art in teaching architectural engineering design.  I knew that I would have a number of apparently technical problems collecting the data and ensuring that I drew valid conclusions from that data.  I knew too that I was entering a field that is essentially a humanities or social sciences field, but I didn't really understand what that meant.
   
In the months since the project was approved I've formulated the survey and have started the interview process.  Talking with colleagues from other disciplines, picking the software I'd use (NVivo), and continuing my reading about my topic I've learned a great deal, much of which is humbling.  I've become far more aware of the complexity of this process and the many different approaches that have evolved in different fields to understanding phenomena like the one that interests me.
   
I recently read with great care Readme First for a User's Guide to Qualitative Methods 2nd Edition, by Richards and Morse - 2006, Sage.  It's written primarily for people like me, beginners in the field who need orientation and specific steps to ensure that what you produce meets the standards of good qualitative research.  Probably most important for me was the early delineation of the three major approaches to qualitative research: Phenomenology, Ethnography, Grounded Theory.  My early explorations in the area of qualitative research brought up Grounded Theory so I had assumed that's what I was doing.  The authors' careful delineation of the purposes and methods of each of these approaches made it clear to me that in fact what I was doing was a form ethnography, which in turn implied a different approach to collecting and analyzing the data. 
   

Of course I'm not an expert from having read a single book, but thanks to it I feel that I have a much greater likelihood of producing something that has a reasonable chance of withstanding critical scrutiny.

North Carolina A&T State University

On November 12th I visited visited North Carolina A&T State University (NCAT), my fourth sabbatical trip. Thanks to the efforts of Sameer Hamoush (Dept. Head) I met all faculty currently teaching the design aspects of the AE program and others as well.   As on my previous trips everyone was welcoming and helpful, making my visit both productive and enjoyable.

What did I learn?

About the NCAT Program

It has a sixty-plus year history of providing a path for African-American (and other) students to enter the professions, both Architecture and Engineering.

• Until the mid-1990's as many architects as engineers emerged from the program.
• Now, with changes in registration requirements, the program is solely engineering-focused, with the majority of the graduates going to work in construction firms.
• Enrollment has fluctuated with varying university admissions policies. It is currently near or at it's highest - 36 students in the capstone design class this year, versus 15 or so only four years ago.

Teaching is the primary responsbility of the department

• Teaching loads are demanding, with course loads of 9-12 credits/semester being common.
• The growth in enrollment has been coincident with a loss of faculty for various reasons, resulting in increased class sizes and teaching loads.
• As in other institutions the university-level atmosphere is changing. More research expectations are being placed on faculty without a corresponding decrease in teaching load or increase in research resources.

Teaching Methods and Curriculum

• The curriculum makes an effort to include all the ABET-identified building systems.
  
  
  
  • There is little construction management included.
• Faculty varied in their identification of teaching methods used in the curriculum.
  
  
  
  • Lecture is the predominant teaching mode.
  • The two Architectural Design courses (taught by department architectural faculty) use a modified studio method
  • The two-semester capstone design sequence uses teamwork extensively, focusing (usually) on the engineering design of building plans taken from a real multistory project. The effort is to take students all the way through schematic, design development and construction document phases.
  • Individual instructors make significant efforts to introduce site visits, visiting lecturers and other methods to bring the external world into the classroom.
• At one point the program had a Masters degree in AE, but that was dropped in 1998 when enrollment decreased.
  
  
  
  • In 1995 the program changed from a 5-year to a 4-year program, in signficant part as a response to the change in architectural registration requirements.
  • There's little discussion of ASCE's possible move to a Bachelor's+30 program. When I raised the issue, there were signficant doubts about its benefits.
• Because the faculty is quite small (5 full-time currently), coordination appears to be quite informal.
• There appears to be some tension in relation to the design classes between those with a practice background and those without because of differring views of what's important.

AE Content Issues

• Sustainability is significant concern with one faculty member as a champion.
  
  
  
  • There is a LEED certification course
  • Sustainability examples are introduced into at least some of the design courses.
• BIM is not seen as a major issue
  
  
  
  • There appears to be little attention paid to it overall
• The Bachelors+30 movement, as noted above, is not given much attention.
• Most faculty attention is on student-related issues, including those of providing good teaching when dealing with the heavy loads experienced.

Students

• As noted above, the school has a proud history of providing opportunity for African Americans.
• AE students are about 3/4 of the department's current senior class of 40 students
• Many arrive not fully prepared in math and sciences, which contributes to a significant attrition rate from freshman to senior year (80 entering with about 30 graduating were current numbers though they should be adjusted to reflect the growing enrollment)
• Many work 20 or more hours a week in non-engineering jobs in order to meet the financial demands, with consequent effects on their academic performance.
• Despite intense efforts on the part of the faculty many do not see the value of preparing for the FE exam, thus producing a performance that disappoints the faculty.

Observations

• The faculty are proud of what their students are able to achieve, while recognizing that many students must live with issues that prevent them from always achieving full potential.
• A number of faculty expressed interest in the results of this study, wanting to see themselve compared to other schools.
• The teaching loads are extremely high, leaving little time in most cases for experimentation or research.
  
  
  
  • Some though, are remakably successful at maintaining a research and professional society engagement despite the loads and limited resources.
• I didn't have time to visit student classes, though several faculy were disappointed at not being able to show me what their students were doing. Those students I observed in and around the deparment were friendly, and cheerful.

About my Sabbatical Project

• Again I'm reinforced in my belief that the face-to-face meetings bring to light relationships that I would never understand strictly from the survey results.

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Visit

On October 1st and 2nd I visited visited Cal Poly San Luis Obispo for my third visit, the end of my first sabbatical trip. Thanks to the efforts of Al Estes (Dept. Head) I met all faculty currently teaching the design aspects of AE program and others as well. As at Wyoming and Boulder everyone was welcoming and helpful making my visit both productive and enjoyable. I could well understand why one faculty member explained why students don't complain if (as is the case for most) it takes longer to graduate than four years - "who wants to leave paradise?"

What did I learn?

About the Cal Poly Program

• It is proudly and very successfully a program devoted to producing structural engineers ready to go to work in the very demanding seismic environment of California
  
• Its graduates are highly sought after (I heard several times that firms say they'll hire only master's students except for Cal Poly undergraduates)
• Students get detailed, working-drawing-level, knowledge in Steel, Concrete, Masonry and Timber design through both analysis classes (lecture) and successor "lab" classes. These latter constitute the capstone design classes and are extraordinarily intense. They meet three times/week for three hours each session and only three credits (units).
• The total number of credits to graduate is 204 quarter-credits = 136 semester credits. Beyond a small number of construction management classes, architecture, and the required "general education" classes, all other classes are structural

• Teaching is emphasized as the primary role of faculty at both the university and department level
  
• The department has a separate tenure process for practitioner-background professors, not necessarily with a PhD.
• The faculty are nearly evenly split between practitioners and more analytic (PhD usually) individuals. There seems to be great respect for that mix, with a belief that the "tension" between the two is constructive.
• By the standards of other institutions teaching loads are extraordinarily high, with the lab courses being the most demanding.
• The faculty are (every one that I interviewed) personally committed to this approach, recognizing the demands, but valuing their environment and the results they see.
• There are some indications that the university-level atmosphere is changing and that more research demands are being placed on faculty without a corresponding decrease in teaching load or increase in research resources.

• Teaching Methods and Curriculum
  
• Faculty have a weekly meeting in which there is much communication.
• There is a strong curriculum committee that regularly reviews assessment material and provides inter-class coordination of material on an ongoing basis.
• There is a much use of models in classes to provide physical understanding of the theoretical principles.
• Faculty seem eager to experiment with variations in the curriculum, though keeping within the long established bounds of the curriculum. An example is the experiment with combining statics and mechanics in a two-course sequence that starts with three-dimensional vectors.
• The curriculum is extremely responsive to industry priorities. These are received through a formal advisory council as well as industry visits and informal communications.
• One faculty member expressed a fear that this verged on a "trade school" approach, but only one.
• Faculty recognize that there are multiple systems in a building, but on the whole feel that MEP (which is unrepresented in the curriculum) can be handled with relatively minor effort to make allowance for weights and duct clearances. If ABET criteria changed to require more explicit inclusion that would cause significant problems for the curriculum, perhaps even prompting a departure from the list of AE schools.
• The department is starting a Master's program, in significant part because of the directions being set by ASCE.
• BIM is being included in the curriculum, in large part because industry believes it is necessary, but no one seemed to think it would make much difference in the other aspects of the curriculum.
• Because the department is located in a school with Architecture there is collaboration with them, but relations with the Civil Engineering program appear to be distant.

• Students
  
• It's highly competitive to enter (about 1 in 8 are admitted)
• About 80% of the graduates go to work in structural firms - a much higher percentage than from at my previous institutions.
• Students I viewed in classes were eager, questioning and often humorous. Their interactions with professors were both respectful and demanding.
• They have an extremely strong student organization (SEAOC) that sponsors both professional and social events regularly. In particular they organize and run a highly regarded "forum" in February that is both a job fair and a gathering place for about sixty firms.
• An AEI chapter may be formed to join forces with SEAOC.

• Observations
  
• As is probably obvious from my comments I was greatly impressed with the detail of the program, the dedication and the teaching approaches of the faculty, and the constructive balance of practitioner-background and theory-background faculty.
• I heard some concern expressed that students weren't being led to explore the creative possibilities of their discipline because of the strong practical emphasis.
• I also heard some desires to increase the working relationship with the other members of their college, Architecture and Construction Management.
• It seems a shame that there appears to be a gulf between this program and their colleagues in Civil Engineering.

About my Sabbatical Project

• I'm inclined to look more carefully at the relationship between overall institution mission and the character of the faculty and goals of the AE program.
• I'm reinforced in my belief that the face-to-face meetings bring to light relationships that I would never understand strictly from the survey results.

University of Colorado at Boulder - Second Visit

On September 29th and 30th I visited visited Boulder (after a lovely weekend in the mountains) for my second visit. Thanks to the efforts of Joann Silverstein (Dept. Head) and Moncef Krarti I met many if not all of the faculty critical to the design aspects of AE program and quite a few others as well. As at Wyoming everyone was welcoming and helpful - exactly what I would have hoped for. One person even returned from a case of food poisoning.

Four faculty had completed my survey (http://tinyurl.com/5vr2gt) in advance and everyone else promised to complete it soon after the visit.

What did I learn?

About the UC Boulder AE Program

• The AE Program is contained within a department that also includes Civil, Environmental engineering, Construction Engineering and Management (CEM)
• All the faculty I interviewed were proud of the program, though many had specific issues that they'd like to improve.
• The AE undergraduates are slightly more than 1/2 of the department's 500+ undergraduates
• Of the department's 41 full-time faculty four are "senior instructors" (non-tenure-track)
  
  
  
  • The role of "Senior Instructors" is strong in the AE program - particularly in design and practical knowledge.
  • The faculty who identify themselves primarily as "ArchE" (AE) appear to be about four or five
  • The structures and CEM courses are identical for all department students with unified enrollment
  • Senior faculty assist younger faculty in an explicit mentoring program
   
• Research and graduate studies are a major emphasis for the faculty
  
  
  
  • There is a strong graduate program at both the masters and PhD level in all the areas.
    
    
    
    • Structures students receive a Civil degree.
    • Mechanical graduate students are identified as pursuing "Building Science" studies
     
• AE Undergraduates have a choice of five "tracks" - more than most programs
  
  
  
  • Structure
  • Mechanical
  • Lighting
  • Construction Engineering and Management
  • AE General
   
• Careers students undertake on receiving the BS are approximately:
  
  
  
  • Construction related 50%
    
    
    
    • I heard many theories about why this is so popular including the ability of the instructors, and the appeal of the outdoors life
     
  • Structural design 25%
    
    
    
    • (with many being high-end residential
     
  • Mechanical design 15%
    
    
    
    • Several faculty felt this was too low and were seeking ways to increase this choice.
     
  • Lighting design 10%
   
• A BS/MS program exists for strong students
  
  
  
  • It is fairly small, at least for AE's (<10/year I believe)
   
• Faculty views of the mutability of the curriculum are varied
  
  
  
  • Some faculty described continuing experiment - with particular changes cited
  • Others described it as essentially unchanging over the last 15 years
   
• The program has an extraordinary teaching tool available, the ITLL building. It is heavily instrumented and designed for visual presentation of its building systems
  
  
  
  • It is heavily used in the courses of the first two years
  • No faculty mentioned it as being a resource in the upper years.
   
• Faculty do use the campus facilities staff in their courses more generally
  
  
  
  • I heard several mentions of tours and cooperation with the facilities staff
  
  
  
  
• The capstone design courses are different for Civil and AE students
  
  
  
  • The AE capstone design begins with an architectural studio in the fall semester, followed in the spring semester by a building systems capstone in which the design from the fall is the basis.
  • The department is currently expecting to reduce the architectural design credits for the senior fall course from six to three.
   
• BIM does not appear to be heavily used or emphasized at the moment

• Lighting design has been a traditional strength of the department
  
  
  
  • A new generation of faculty is taking over with a strong interest in sustainable practices, including more efficient lighting and daylighting design 
   
• The department is graced by the presence of Geotech engineer Bernard Amadei, founder of Engineers Without Borders
  
  
  
  • I had the opportunity to hear him speak with the seniors. If I were a graduating senior I'd have wanted to sign up.
   
• The Boulder campus is extraordinarily beautiful, right at the edge of the Front Range of the Rockies.
  

• The Engineering Center is a handsome complex of buildings.
  
  
  
  • In a classic design paradox, the buildings require complex circulation paths and make expansion difficult.
    

About the Sabbatical Project

• Many of the faculty were interested in what I have learned
  
  
  
  • They're eager to see the results of the study and believe they may be important
  • They recognize lack of knowledge of other schools, even those close by
   
• Again there was a lack of clear agreement on a definition of AE Design
  
  
  
  • Many ingredients were mentioned repeatedly
  • In the interviews there wasn't much discussion of teaching or assessment methods (which may be the responsibility of the interviewer) 
   

• It's clear, as expected, that the personal visits and interviews will increase survey response rate
  
  
  
  • I emphasized to many "non-AE" faculty that their views mattered as well.

AEI Denver Conference Reflections

State of AEI

• I'm highly sympathetic to the organizers of the conference.  They depend on what's submitted for their technical content and clearly have made great efforts to increase the breadth and depth of the conference topics. Nonetheless, AEI exists, as the founder of the Institute reminded us at the awards luncheon, to bring together all those involved in the design of buildings.  My observation is that we have a long way to go towards that ideal, however much has been accomplished in its first decade. 
• I'd argue that Architectural Engineering's central charge is to consider the interactions between the disciplines, often shortened to "integrating" them.  However, the great majority of the presentations that  I scanned in the proceedings or viewed in the two days were single-discipline in nature.  They are certainly additions to the literature, but I suspect that many of them would be more widely accepted if presented in the literature of those specific disciplines. 
• There were indeed some in the design area, particularly those relating to BIM, that would appear to cross disciplinary lines, but they were a significant minority.
• One noticeable problem was speakers not appearing for their scheduled sessions, to the obvious surprise of the session moderators.  In one session I attended only one of four scheduled appeared (fortunately the speaker easily expanded his worthwhile if obviously oft-repeated BIM

Academic Council

• The academic council was the highlight of the conference (other than my Drexel students winning second place in the paper competition).  It was an opportunity to meet the folks who to this point were only voices on the phone.
• We had three hours of worthwhile discussion and elected Jay Puckett of Wyoming the next chair.  Having just spent time with him I'm quite sure he'll do a splendid job.

Conference Logistics

• The AEI/ASCE staff running the conference did a good job dealing with the vagaries of the convention and people like me who lost their name tag.
• To me it's ironic to hold an AEI conference in as splendid a climate as Denver's in hotel having a completely sealed environment.  That the HVAC control system in my room didn't work properly was no help.

University of Wyoming - First Visit

On September 22nd and 23rd I visited mile-and-a-half (almost) high Laramie, Wyoming for my first visit. Thanks to the efforts of David Bagley (Dept. Head) and Tony Denzer I met many if not all of the faculty critical to the design aspects of AE program and quite a few others as well.  Everyone was welcoming and helpful - exactly what I would have hoped for.

Several faculty had completed my survey (http://tinyurl.com/5vr2gt) in advance and everyone else promised to complete it soon after the visit.  That made a great start to collecting valid data for the project.

What did I learn?

About U. Wyoming's AE Program

• It has a thriving AE program with about an 80-20 split between structural and mechanical concentrations (they'd like to increase the mechanical numbers).
• They're heavily committed to making BIM an important part of their curriculum.
• The program was in existence well before the 1986 date shown on my chart.
• Architectural studios begin in the junior year and are taught by department faculty since there is no architectural program in the state of Wyoming (according to Thom Edgar when there's a football game in the Cowboy's stadium the stadium is the third largest city in Wyoming).
• Their graduates are sought after, and most leave the state due to the lack of hometown jobs.
• There are separate capstone courses for each concentration as well as a semester-long capstone course taken by all concentrations.

About my Study

• The results of my study are eagerly awaited. They'd like to know what other institutions are doing.
• The survey is a bit intimidating.  I've decided to make a few modifications to hopefully reduce that.
• The survey doesn't address assessment.  I'll consider whether to modify the survey to include assessment questions or just ask some in the interviews.
• My seminar was helpful for those who attended to understand the goals of the survey.  Making it early in the visit would be helpful, but is often difficult for scheduling reasons.
• An hour visit with each faculty seems to be about the right time, though a half hour can work.
• There are several information sources I should pursue - the draft study of AE curricula by Al Estes; the PAKS study looking at the body of knowledge necessary for the AE Exam.
• Observing classes is interesting, but my sense is that I don't get a good enough sample to draw any conclusions.
• I've made a number of new friends that I'll look forward to seeing again.

Visit Goals + Survey Link

I'm now in the final phases of preparing for my first visits at the end of September and the beginning of October (see the calendar).  I just sent an email to my contacts at the first three institutions.  Below is the body of the majority of that email.  It addresses:

• What I'm trying to learn
• The survey I've prepared - anyone reading this with the responsibility of Teaching AE Design is welcome to complete it and comment.
• Who I'd like to meet with
• Asking permission to contact faculty in advance of the visit.

*****************************

What I'm trying to learn

Since I last wrote I've worked hard at refining the issues I'm trying to address.  In order to do that I put together a survey/questionnaire that appears quite long, but can be completed fairly rapidly if one just checks boxes, though I hope that people will be inspired to give comments since I'll probably learn the most interesting things from them. 

The Survey

I've enclosed a copy of that form with this email.  The online version of the survey is available at:  http://tinyurl.com/5vr2gt

o    I'd appreciate any suggestions for clarification or improvements to the survey that you choose to make. 

o    If you can make the time, filling it out yourself would be much appreciated, either in paper or online form.

o    I'd note that if you fill it out with Adobe Reader you currently cannot save the PDF version of the form with your filled-in answers - I'm trying to figure out how to make that possible, but haven't yet succeeded.

FYI, I've gone through the Human Subjects review process with our Institutional Review Board at Drexel to ensure that the process I'm using and the data safeguards I plan meet their standards.

My plan is to use that survey as the basis of discussions with faculty, either individually or in groups, recording the interviews if the faculty give permission.  If a faculty member has filled out the form in advance then the interview can either be shorter or go into specific areas in greater depth - as they see fit. 

Who I'd Like to Meet With

I've looked through the material available on your website to try and identify people who might be appropriate for me to interview.  Below I've given either the names or other identifying characteristics.  Again I recognize the limits of busy schedules and faculty interests.  I'll need all the help you can give me.

People With Specific Responsibilities

o    Faculty who seem to have interests in this area:

• People I’ve identified are:

o    Anyone teaching a course identified as relating to Architectural Engineering Design

• People I’ve identified are:

o    Anyone teaching an introductory course that gives an overview of Architectural Engineering.

o    Individuals advising students about curriculum choices

Contacting Faculty

I'd like to contact the relevant faculty by email in advance of my visit, telling them what it's about and inviting them to complete the online survey in advance.  I won't do so unless you explicitly say it's OK.  If you can provide me a list with email address that would be great, but I can probably dig out the information from your website if all you want to do is say "OK".

Human Subjects Research Review

In preparing for my interviews I've read several social sciences texts, including "The Handbook of Interview Research" (Sage 2002; Gubrium & Holstein Editors).  One of the articles mentioned in passing the necessity of getting approval for Human Subjects research from an Institutional Review Board (IRB).  I'd blithely planned the visits thinking that I was just asking questions of other faculty and therefore that kind of review had no applicability.  According to Drexel's IRB I was wrong!

Being a cautious type I sent them an EMail explaining what I was doing and essentially saying 'I'm sure this doesn't fall under your jurisdiction, but please tell me I'm correct.'  The wrote back and told me they must review it and that I couldn't proceed until it was approved.

A week of panic ensued.  I cited the federal regulations saying, as I thought, that this kind of work was exempt.  No, it just means that I don't need a 'full' IRB review, I could get an expedited one.  Having envisioned months of delay and canceled plane reservations and a glowing red face I was enormously relieved to find that all it took was filling in a 13 page form, submitting my sabbatical proposal and the questionnaire I planned to use (still in draft form which a knowledgeable friend assured me was a no-no). 

I submitted.  I received a request for a minor correction and approval letters from each institution I planned to visit.  Panic again - I don't have invitations from each institution.  After a phone call I was told that the original emails of what I had might suffice (the text of the emails in my proposal wouldn't do).  Several hours later, after a complex search hindered by my email program's not indexing archives automatically I sent off the information.

Last week I received the opinion that I was exempt and could proceed, but still under some reporting and updating strictures.

I'm not sure if there are any big lessons in this. 

• Some would say I was a fool for asking.  
• Others would curse the weird rules that make you jump through hoops to prove you don't fall under the rules.
• Others would say I should have expected it.

My conclusion is that I actually was forced to formalize my thinking a bit to fill out the 13-page form and that I benefitted from that aspect.  Now that it's behind I can smile a bit.

Compact Academic Calendar - Excel Template

As part of my planning for the coming year I realized that it would be helpful to have the year at a glance. David Seah produced a very nice Excel template that does exactly that, allowing one to print out a year's worth of calendar on a single piece of paper that will fold to fit with 3x5 cards. It's great for planning because it's continuous, not starting a new line for each month.

To make it suitable for those whose logical years start at other times I've made two variants.

Academic Year 2008-9 - Template

• This runs from September to August. It's in Excel-2003 format.

General (any) Starting Date - Template

• It allows you to put in any starting date that you wish and produces a full year's calendar starting from that date.
• This allows you, for instance, to pick either a Sunday or Monday and any week of the year as a starting point.
• This works well ONLY in Office-2007 (it loses formatting in Office-2003).
  
• It uses conditional formatting and some vaguely fancy formulae so the sheets are "protected", but there's no password so anybody can modify them to suit themselves.
• The Holidays are entered in a separate (non-printing) table on the same page and are automatically put in the calendar. Note that if they belong in the line that has the month name they're pushed to the next line.
  

If you pass on these files please be sure to give David Seah credit.

8/30/2008 Updated to make the holidays appear "automatically" in the printed calendar.
If you want to see a discussion of what I did I explained it in DonationCoder's forum.

10/21/2008 Ellis Godard has updated my version to allow you to choose the start and end dates to make a "truly compact calendar". - Nice.

Approaches to Teaching AE Design

One of the questions I've asked on the survey/questionnaire that I'm developing is which approaches to teaching AE Design do the faculty use.  I've included links to most of them below to help anyone who's uncertain of the meaning I intend.

• Lecture 
• Architectural Studio 
• Modified Studio - Architectural Studio modified, especially by emphasizing team-based projects 
• Case Study
  
• Problem-Based Learning 
• Guided Design 
• Socratic 
• Other
  

Thanks for Taking The Survey

Thank you!

I know that the survey was longer than ideal, but hopefully the results will inform all of us about our commonalities and unique perspectives.

I'm setting it up so that you can return to add to or modify what you've already entered. I'd note that to get back you'll need to have enabled cookies for the survey site and therefore you'll have to be on the same computer each time.

I'll post information about the surveys and any work that comes out of them on this blog site. You're welcome to come back here to follow what happens - and make any comments you wish.

AE Programs - Overview and Emphases

I've been looking at all the papers I can find related to AE Design. An excellent starting point for an overview of the AE programs are the papers by Al Estes and Hector Estrada in which they looked at the information available for all the AE programs. All the information comes from my interpretation of Estes [1] unless otherwise noted.
I've taken the liberty of summarizing their summary in a single table that at helps me get a handle on some of the key paramaters. I strongly suspect that I'll get feedback giving me better information. I'll update this table with the corrected results.
What I've added as interpretation are the last four columns in which I've determined the program emphases by the disciplines. To do so I used the semester hours form Estes Figure-3 deciding on "reasonable" break points for the categories.

AE Program	5-yr	Acred [2]	AE Deg. 2004-5	Quarter System	Struct	MEP	Constr	Arch
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo		1975	30	Q	S	-	o
Drexel University	Coop-5	1991	40	Q			-
Illinois Institute of Technology		2003	5					o
Kansas State	5	1980	55					o
Milwaukee School of Engineering		1988	40	Q	o			o
North Carolina A&T State College		1969	20
Oklahoma State University	5	1986	5		s	o	o
Penn State University	5	1936	100
Tennessee State		1977	10
University of Colorado		1936	40
University of Kansas	5	1936	22				o	S
University of Miami		1962	10
University of Missouri Rolla		new	15
University of Nebraska - Lincoln (Masters AE)		2004	90			S	-	o
University of Oklahoma			0				o	S
University of Texas		1938	45					o
University of Wyoming		1986	35			s	o	o
Texas A&M - Kingsville		new

Legend for determining the emphasis for the disciplines - Based on Semeser hours (Estes fig. 3)

-	Absent	<5%
o	Minimal	5-20%
Blank	Even	20-35
s	Some emphasis	35-45%
S	Strong emphasis	>45%

Sources

[1]	Estes, Allen and Estrada, Hector, “Architectural Engineering Programs: Finding Common Ground),” ASEE Conference Proceedings, 2007; http://www.asee.org/acPapers/AC%202007Full870.pdf.
[2] H. Estrada, “2006-1748 a survey of the american architectural Engineering Curriculum,” ASEE Conference Proceedings, 2006; http://www.asee.org/acPapers/code/getPaper.cfm?paperID=10006.

Questions for Individual Interviews - Initial thoughts

I've formulated the following questions as the basis for my interviews during the visits. Time with each individual is certainly going to vary so I'll probably not be able to address all of them. We may also find as a result of the initial interviews that these should be altered. I welcome suggestions for improving them.

Questions I hope to ask everyone

What is AE Design (AED)?

• As embodied in the school's program
• As practiced in industry
• Your personal view

How does AE Design differ from discipline design (structure, MEP, etc)?

• Within program
• To industry
• To you personally
• Nationally

How important is AE Design?

• Within program
• To industry
• To you personally
• Nationally

What are the ingredients of AE Design?

• In your program?
• In industry
• As you teach it
• Nationally

What methods are used to teach AE Design?

• In your program
• As you teach it

e.g.

• Case study
• Guided Design
• Studio method
• Lecture
• Project based design

What do you think are the best methods to teach AE Design?

• In your program
• As you teach it

What's missing for AE Design as it's currently taught?

• In your program
• As you teach it
• Nationally

What are key content issues for the Teaching of AE Design?

• In your program
• As you teach it
• Nationally

e.g.

• BIM
• Student preparation
• Green design
• Masters as first Prof. degree

What haven't we covered that you think is relevant?

---

Extended Interview questions

• What do you find is the most satisfying thing about teaching AE Design?
• What do you find is the most frustrating thing about teaching AE Design?
• What is the most confusing thing about teaching AE Design?
• What research is needed related to Teaching AE Design?
• It's been observed that what commonality exisits among AE programs is the result of the ABET requirements. What comments do you have about this?
• Should there be any national standards for Teaching AE Design?
• Is there a need for any national effort (ASCE for example) related to Teaching AE Design?

Computers as Tools - An Initial Reflection

The computer is the essential tool for most design work today. Programs are analogous to the computation methods that were the critical components that I learned when I was in school. What a good education these days should do (in part) is

• Teach engineering critical thinking which involves
  
  
  
  • Learning the limits of computation tools
  
  
  • Identifying when each is appropriate
  
  
  • learning how to check the output in a meaningful manner - usually by hand, but not always
  
  
  
  


• Learn the variety of tools that are available


• Learn how to adopt new tools


• Understand the principles that lie behind each of the tools


• Learn common methods and assumptions that extend across tools


• Learn data transfer methods


• Learn how to present data to others in a way that is meaningful

If students can learn these skills I think we’ll have served them well.

To do so we probably have to learn several tools in a shallow manner to address learning techniques and at least one in depth to be able to assess limits.

I’d argue at the moment that these ideas should apply to my study of design for the sabbatical.

Who Would I like to Meet During a Visit?

I've been thinking about how best to make use of the two days I hope to have at each AE school. Earlier I posted a general schedule for the two days. Since then I've been considering how I'm most likely to get a clear picture of the way AE Design is taught and what are its goals and results. In the process I've been through several school websites in detail and built a list of the kinds of people that I believe would be beneficial to interview, either singly or in a group if that's more appropriate. The following list is in rough priority order, but I'm sure each person has unique information to add.

• AE Program Head
• Department Head - if different from Program
• Undergraduate Advisors
• Head of each sub-discipline track
• Faculty who teach design
• Reps of student Associations (AEI, ASCE)
• Industry advisory council AE member(s)

Typical Visit - Initial Plan

I'll shortly be sending out Emails to the schools I hope to visit on either side of the AEI convention at the end of September. That's forced me to consider what I want to accomplish during each visit and therefore how I should structure it - recognizing that individual schedules are likely to make this ideal seldom achieved.

I've allocated two days for each visit in the hope that will allow enough time to talk at some length with all who have a hand in teaching AE design, as well as observing several classes.

I'm suggesting as well that I give a seminar presentation early in my visit so I can pass on what I've learned about the way AE design is taught at the various schools and my thoughts about the issues facing the profession. My hope is that this talk will stimulate discussion with the faculty and students.

Below are my thoughts about the ideal outline. I welcome suggestions for changes and improvements.

Day-1

• Meet with Visit Host(s)
• Visit Dept. Head
• Give Seminar on "Teaching AE Design"
• Tour facilities
• Lunch with faculty
• Visit individual faculty in offices
• Observe Classes

Day-2

• Visit individual faculty in offices
• Observe classes
• Final meeting with any interested - what I observed and learned

A note about the "host" function. I don't want it to be burdensome. I hope that they'd help organize the visits within the department. I'll organize all my own travel, lodging and meals.

July's Escape - AE Examples in the UK

I spent July in the UK, mostly enjoying myself in the countryside and in London. Several AE related visits particularly impressed me:

• The Eden Project in Cornwall (images) - What a splendid marriage of structure, landscape and MEP.
• Peterborough Cathedral (among others - images) - Like so many gothic cathedrals the structure that has endured 800 years exalts the spirit as good architecture should.
• Alpine House in Kew Gardens, London - (my images) - Like the Eden project a splendid, though far smaller, integration of structure and MEP.

Any of these could be used as excellent case studies in a design class.

ASEE Conference in Pittsburgh 6/22-25

I'm freshly back from the 2008 ASEE conference in Pittsburgh.  Several things were reinforced for me:

• As I'd hoped, I met several of the AE program faculty that I expect to visit during the year, specifically John Phillips and Al Estes.  Both were helpful and cordial.  
• I was disappointed that ASEE didn't draw as many other AE folk as I'd imagined but I certainly understand the pressures of money, research and family responsibilities.  I've not been a regular attender either.
• I realize that I need to do quite a bit of reading so that I’m not repeating work that has already been accomplished by others. I'll be trolling the past ASEE conferences for relevant work.
• The objectives of my visiting each of the schools were tossed in the air and are somewhat confused.  That’s better before the trip than after. In particular, my conversations made it even more evidident that the diversity of approaches to AE overall makes it unlikely that I'm going to find much agreement on what is design or how it should be taught.
• My sense from multiple sessions is that a social scientist being involved in any educational experiment is a near-necessity if you’re attempting to convince others of the result.  What that means for this year’s effort is unclear, but perhaps it means that I should come back looking for a consultant.
• While not specifically related to teaching design I was particularly impressed with the good work being done with tablet PC's (especially at Virginia Tech) and can see good opportunities for design education as that technology improves.
• Also, Pittsburgh is a lovely town, at its best thanks to grand weather - photos.

Ideal Travel Plans

To visit the 17 AE programs in the US I've put together an Ideal Travel Plan that spaces out my visits and allows two days per visit (with some heavy driving I'm sure). I'd appreciate reactions from possible hosts at the various schools on whether this makes sense to you.

• I'd be amazed if it works out as tidily as this envisions, but one has to have a starting point.
• My calendar where I'll put details as they develop is visible here.

Visit 1 - September 22-Oct 3

California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo	Before AEI Conf
University of Colorado at Boulder	After AEI Conf
University of Wyoming	After AEI Conf

Visit 2 - December 1-12

University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Kansas State University (KSU)
University of Kansas (KU)
University of Missouri-Rolla

Visit 3 - February 2-13/2009

Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT)
Milwaukee School Of Engineering
North Carolina A&T State University
Tennessee State University

Visit 4 - April 6-17

Oklahoma State University
University of Oklahoma
University of Texas at Austin
University of Miami

Visit 5 - Individual Visits

Penn State University

Mid-November