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

AE Schools Cooperation & ABET Issues

Respondents were asked to give ratings (1-5 scale using words) on the following questions:

• Evaluate the importance of cooperation and coordination between the different AE Schools in the US (or abroad).
• Evaluate the importance of possible changes in the ABET accreditation requirements.

The detailed results are available on this Google-Docs spreadsheet.

 

Summary of Results

Cooperation and coordination between the different AE Schools in the US

Considerable Importance

• ABET criteria development (4.0/5)
• PE Exam Development (3.7/5)

Some Importance

• Sharing Instructional Techniques (3.3/5)

Neutral or Negative Importance

• Remote access to specialist instructors (3.1/5)
• Joint projects with other schools (2.8/5)

 

Importance of Possible Changes in the ABET accreditation requirements

Considerable Importance

• Require "integration" of at least two of the three AE components (3.6/5)
• Require industry experience for faculty members teaching AE Design. (3.4/5)

Some Importance

• Identify a specific number of credits identifiable as AED (3.2/5)

 

J. Mitchell Suggestion

While there isn't unanimity on these results, several show a considerable weight that deserves discussion in the AEI academic council and at the AEI national level.

 

Note on Statistical Significance of Results

Almost all the results showed a statistically significant difference from a null-hypothesis model centered on the middle term (3.0) of the 5-Likert values using a goodness-of-fit chi-squared analysis.  Those that weren't significant are shaded gray. 

Note, as always, that a significant result does not mean a big difference.  That is a matter of individual judgement, which is the reason the actual counts are shown.

Issues Important to Faculty - Status Report

Evaluate the importance of the following issues to your school:

	None	Low	Average	High	Critical	Response Count
BIM	7.9% (3)	31.6% (12)	26.3% (10)	26.3% (10)	7.9% (3)	38
Integration of all ABET components of AE - Structure; HVAC; Electrical/Power/Lighting; Construction Management	2.4% (1)	17.1% (7)	14.6% (6)	41.5% (17)	24.4% (10)	41
Student Preparation on Entering program	7.5% (3)	25.0% (10)	32.5% (13)	32.5% (13)	2.5% (1)	40
Sustainability Design	2.4% (1)	11.9% (5)	26.2% (11)	50.0% (21)	9.5% (4)	42
Lean / economic design	7.7% (3)	20.5% (8)	43.6% (17)	25.6% (10)	2.6% (1)	39
Bachelor's + 30 (Masters as first professional degree)	12.8% (5)	25.6% (10)	38.5% (15)	12.8% (5)	10.3% (4)	39
Coordination with other departments	5.0% (2)	27.5% (11)	40.0% (16)	17.5% (7)	10.0% (4)	40
Other (please identify)	50.0% (2)	0.0% (0)	25.0% (1)	25.0% (1)	0.0% (0)	4

Evaluate the importance of the following issues to AE programs nationally.

	None	Low	Average	High	Critical	Response Count
BIM	3.2% (1)	19.4% (6)	29.0% (9)	41.9% (13)	6.5% (2)	31
Integration of all three ABET components of AE - Structure; MEP; Construction Management	0.0% (0)	12.5% (4)	28.1% (9)	46.9% (15)	12.5% (4)	32
Student Preparation on Entering program	0.0% (0)	16.1% (5)	38.7% (12)	45.2% (14)	0.0% (0)	31
Sustainability Design	0.0% (0)	12.9% (4)	19.4% (6)	54.8% (17)	12.9% (4)	31
Lean / economic design	0.0% (0)	12.9% (4)	45.2% (14)	41.9% (13)	0.0% (0)	31
Masters as first professional degree	3.2% (1)	25.8% (8)	45.2% (14)	22.6% (7)	3.2% (1)	31
Coordination with other departments	0.0% (0)	14.3% (4)	60.7% (17)	25.0% (7)	0.0% (0)	28
Other (please identify)	100.0% (2)	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	0.0% (0)	2

Survey Response So far

Here's a brief status report on how the data collection from the surveys is going so far.  A separate blog entry gives the faculty opinion on issues important to the schools and also nationally.  I've now visited one half the schools and am about to visit the second half in the next three months

Responses by University as of Noon 1/17/2009

University	Visited already	Responses
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo	Yes	8
Illinois Institute of Technology	No	1
North Carolina A&T State College	Yes	5
Penn State University	Yes	7
University of Colorado	Yes	9
University of Kansas	Yes	7
Missouri University of Science and Technology	Yes	4
University of Nebraska - Lincoln	Yes	3
University of Wyoming	Yes	7
Other		1
Tennessee State	No	1
Total		52

Academic Rank of Respondent

Rank	Number
Professor	16
Assoc. Professor	17
Assistant Prof	15
Instructor	3
Adjunct	1
Total	52

Primary Discipline of the Respondent

Discipline	Number
Architectural Engineering	10
Architecture	5
Structures	20
HVAC	5
Electrical Power	3
Lighting	3
Environmental	1
Construction Management	5
Other	11
Total	52

Experience of the Respondents - Average

Note that there is a great range in the details

Area	Average Years
Teaching Experience	13.9
Industry Experience	8.3
Years teaching AE Design	9.9

Professional Registration of the Respondents

Note that these are not mutually exclusive

Registration	Number
PE	36
RA	5
Other	7
Total Respondents	40

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.