Defining AE Design - ASEE-2009 Paper (AC 2009-448)

Next week I'll be giving a paper based on the survey that 105 faculty in the 17 schools that I visited completed.  The paper in the ASEE proceedings was completed before all the survey results were collected.  This version (link) provides updated results.  There were some changes in both the coding methodology and the results between the two that are noted in the paper.  This one is more complete and appropriate.
The abstract is:

---

An online survey of representative faculty at ABET-accredited Architectural Engineering schools addressed the question of what constitutes “Architectural Engineering Design” (AED). The faculty are first characterized in multiple ways: university, academic rank, years of experience, registration status and discipline. The results of their open-ended definition of AED are examined using nine categories derived from responses rated on 1-5 Likert scales, with the analysis broken down using the same faculty characterization. Faculty opinions about the disciplines necessary to include in AED are also analyzed. Overall there is general agreement that disciplinary “skills” are an important part of AED as are, to a lesser extent, the “products” produced. There is some agreement about the idea of “integration” of the disciplines and much less agreement on many of the other concepts, with several barely mentioned. Most faculty feel that their definition of AED is the same as their school’s, but many express uncertainty about the existence of a national definition. Similarly there is considerable agreement that more than one discipline (Architecture, Structure, HVAC, Electrical, Construction Management) is required to constitute AED, but there is marked disagreement about what specific ones should be included, with opinions ranging from two to all five.

PDF of Talk Slides

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.