To better equip engineers to enter a dynamic technological and economic environment, educators must improve their understanding of the wide-ranging work of engineers and the flexible skills it demands. To that end, we studied engineering practice in six firms of varying size and industry. We analyzed the similarities and differences of engineering practice across these sites, and gathered narrative examples of what it means to be an engineer at these locations. Our data indicates more similarities across sites than differences. Although workplace cultures differed, most engineers saw their work similarly. They saw their work as problem solving, almost always done in explicitly organized teams or in informal collaboration with others. Engineers cited clear communication as the most important skill, with budgets and time limitations generally noted as the most significant constraints. Engineers generally valued solving a problem, learning, and working in a team more than other aspects of their jobs. This understanding of engineering work can be used to better equip engineers for the workforce and improve organizational practices.

While most professional and academic sources have expressed a need for engineers who possess strong communication skills, what these skills are actually defined as on-the-job remains somewhat vague in the literature. In this mixed-method study of practicing engineers from industry and governmental engineering workplaces, we heard and observed some answers to help define what communication skills engineers are actually practicing in their jobs. Through qualitative data collected over the past two years in six workplace case studies (including over 50 hours of observation and more than 50 interviews), interviews of engineers and their managers (N=91), and surveys of engineers and engineering managers (N=162), three main themes emerged to provide insights into what engineers mean when they say they value "effective communication" in other engineers. The first theme was what numerous engineers in our study described as "the big picture," or the ability to effectively speak, write, and interact with audiences who were outside of their specific discipline, work group, or focus. Our second theme centers on an engineer's willingness and self-motivation to initiate communication with others and to seek out resource information through informal interactions. Finally, the third theme involves the ability of engineers to listen carefully to others in order to do their best work and achieve results that are valued by their stakeholders (clients, managers, co-workers). Understanding these three themes can inform more authentic and engaging ways of teaching engineering students. Teaching improvements are needed, as one interviewee put it, because "Good engineers typically are more than just engineers….I need someone who I can drop in [who] can communicate effectively today."

currently teaches full-time at Cornell University in the Engineering Communication Program. She instructs within that program and is seated as a co-instructor for partnered engineering courses in the AEP, CS/INFO, BEE, Materials, and other departments. Outside of Cornell, as a member of IEEE's Professional Communication Society, she served as a series editor for the Professional Engineering Communication books and participates at the national level for that organization. Her book, with co-author Christine Nicometo and published with Wiley-IEEE Press, is called Slide Rules: Design, Build, and Archive Presentations in the Engineering and Technical Fields (2014).

To better meet the needs of this century's workplace, engineering educators must better understand the current work and values of professional engineers. However, formal research in this area is limited. In this portion of our study we interviewed practicing engineers (n=45), surveyed engineers, engineering managers and individuals with engineering backgrounds (n=280), and conducted a case study of one engineering firm. In order to better understand the epistemic frame of engineering, or what makes an engineer an engineer, this study used a grounded theory approach. This approach used the viewpoint of engineers to uncover implications for engineering education. We gained insights on (1) what engineers see as notable and as exemplifying engineering in their work, (2) what aspects of their work they value most, and (3) what they would like to be different in their work. Specifically, we found that engineers see their work as using specialized knowledge to solve problems in a constantly evolving, local and/or global, business context. Engineers value (1) solving problems for clients, (2) creatively applying their knowledge, and (3) learning new skills and concepts. Engineers also expressed that their work often involves a greater focus on managerial and business processes than the tangible engineering of solutions, and that there is insufficient emphasis on developing new skills. These findings indicate that engineering education should ensure that students work to creatively apply their knowledge to actual clients' problems and develop significant business and communication skills. Engineers also substantiated these implications in responding to what they would have liked to have had as part of their formal undergraduate education. Problem Engineering practice in the United States is constantly evolving due to new technology and a changing global context. Arguably, educational practice needs to keep pace with those changes. According to the Engineer of 2020 report, unless engineering education practice change to meet the demands of the workplace, the United States will not sustain its global leadership and share of jobs in high-tech professions 1. Statistics from the American Society for Engineering Education also indicate that U.S. engineering programs "are not keeping up with the country's increasing demand for engineering talent" 2. Not only is enrollment insufficient, retention of engineering students needs to improve as an estimated one third of college students who start in engineering drop out 3. Enrollment and retention could be improved by better aligning educational practices with workplace realities. Current studies indicate that "there is a clear need for more effective integration between education and working life" 4. Before that can be done, it is essential to have a firm picture of the work that engineers do today. Unfortunately, that picture is limited. "There are few reliable reports of research on engineering practice" 5 .

No abstract

Engineering educators often acknowledge that engineering ethics should be integral to undergraduate skills curriculums. In fact, the body of work regarding teaching engineering ethics to undergraduates is substantial and programs, courses, case studies, special assignments, partnerships with industry and other venues have been forged and implemented quite successfully in undergraduate education. A quick look in the IEEE archives, for example, shows over 75 recent papers and conference panels that address teaching undergraduate engineering ethics in the past three years alone. However, the body of work about how professional engineers are trained about ethics on the job, how they enact ethical decision making, or how/if they think about ethics in daily work environments is not nearly as rich. And while various professional codes of ethics are easily found in the engineering, business, and technical fields, part of our study's purpose was to tease out the values and ethical positioning that engineers apply moment to moment during their work. Engineering, like all professional work, reflects an intricate interplay of social forces, economic forces, legal constraints, technological demands, and organizational cultures 1. Any discussion about ethics on the job is complex, unwieldy, and may resist even the best attempts at categorization or standardization.

Madison. His research interests include STEM education leadership, policy and authentic curriculum. He is a former secondary school science teacher.

No abstract