The Influence of the Grinter Report on Engineering ...ciec/Proceedings_2015/ETD/ETD315_FlaniganPorter.pdf · for Engineering Education The Influence of the Grinter Report on Engineering

Session ETD-315

Proceedings of the 2015 Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration Copyright©2015, American Society for Engineering Education

The Influence of the Grinter Report on Engineering Technology and the Emergence of Manufacturing Engineering Technology

Rod L. Flanigan, Dale S. Porter

University of Nebraska at Kearney

Abstract

Engineers have played an instrumental role in the social, political, and economic development of the United States. As with most professions, engineering has evolved over the years. Engineering has gone from a very rudimentary form of manual arts, to a high level of science and research today. From the beginning, engineering was more of a hands-on, shop-cultured training process learned through various means of gilds, apprenticeships, and simple on-the-job training. Many of the early European immigrants to this country brought these technical skills and organizational talents with them to this new country.

After engineering was formally introduced to academia in the early 1800’s, a transition

started to take place. A subtle shift from the hands-on, shop-cultured engineer, to a more theoretical, school-cultured engineer began. This transition happened over many years, but as it evolved an interesting phenomenon took shape. While these new theoretically trained engineers began to graduate and enter the work force, it soon became clear that they did not have the practical experience, the hands-on training and background that would allow them to have a full understanding of how things work in the manufacturing environment.

The little known “preliminary” Report of the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering

Education (otherwise known as the Grinter Report) recognized this apparent void of knowledge. While the final version of said report eliminated what would be considered the engineering technology component of engineering education, it is clear from the preliminary report that the committee saw a need for a more hands-on approach to engineering education.

Despite the fact that this ASEE committee removed the engineering technology

component from the Grinter Report, engineering technology would soon find its place in higher education. However, even as these new engineering technology programs were being developed, it was unclear exactly what “engineering technology” was, and what role it would play both in academia, as well as in industry.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the origin of engineering education in America, and describe the events that led up to the introduction of the Manufacturing Engineering Technology program at an American university.

Session ETD-315


The Origins of Engineering Education in America

Engineering education in America was heavily influenced by the early European immigrants who were, for the most part, highly skilled tradesmen and craftsmen. As these skilled laborers immigrated to the new America, they brought with them their organizational and trade skills. These early American settlers would play a large role in the future development of the American engineering education system. While the early adopters of engineering and technology education came from many different backgrounds, the common thread among them was that this historical background helped to shape the future of the engineering discipline.1

The evolution of engineering education in the United States followed a similar path to

that of the European countries. As the art of warfare, and the other economic needs of society began to advance, so too did the need for a more scientific approach to solving these problems. By the mid 1700’s King Louis XV, for example, recognized the need for a more scientific approach to addressing the needs of society and commissioned Jean Perronet to establish a school that would design bridges and highways. Likewise, during the industrialization of the American colonies, there began to emerge a similar need for a more scientific approach to some of the economic challenges of the day. Manufacturing of tools, food, clothing, and other such basic needs was a significant concern in the late 1700’s due, in part, to the non-importation law of 1774. At the same time, basic infrastructure development required competent “engineers” to design and build canals, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure needs for the growing country.2 While this demand for a more scientific approach to solving the needs of society created opportunity for higher education, it also called into question the need for the time-honored tradition of the guilds and apprenticeships that had satisfied the needs of the European society for so long.

Shop Cultured Engineering Education. During the 13th and 14th centuries, many European countries, including France, England, Germany, and others developed a very complex and intricate system of guilds and apprenticeships to train and educate the youth of the day in a specific trade. Up until the 19th century, the majority of people received little or no formal education. It was through this intricate apprenticeship program that youth could receive both non-technical and specific technical training. This tradition of training highly skilled craftsmen continued for several centuries, and would ultimately have an impact on formal education. Samuel Hartlib, Sir William Petty, and John Locke, all notable English scientists and educators in the late 1600’s, were all instrumental in introducing the idea of manual work as a means of improving overall education while at the same time giving it more scientific as well as practical content. Despite their efforts, however, it would take many years before the system would be effectively implemented.2

Meanwhile, during the latter part of the 1600’s apprenticeships similar to those in England were growing in the English colonies in America. Organizational efforts, local laws, and societal need would continue to define these apprenticeship programs. At the same time there were efforts being made to introduce the idea of manual arts into education in the new America.

Session ETD-315


In 1685, a New Jersey Quaker immigrant from England named Thomas Budd proposed an industrial education plan in Pennsylvania that included manual arts. While there is no evidence to suggest that his plan was carried out at that time, there would soon be others who would promote this idea of industrial education. In 1745 a group of Moravian Brethren in Pennsylvania developed a system of industrial instruction centered around the idea of manual arts.2 Other schools would also utilize various forms of manual arts education, including Cokesbury College near Baltimore, MD.

This intricate system of manual arts instruction and apprenticeship would continue to be

the primary form of education for lower and middle-class youth for many years. The knowledge and understanding gained from this shop-cultured education would play an important role in the development and growth of a more formal and scientific approach to engineering education.

School Cultured Engineering Education. As the new America continued to grow and develop in the mid to late 1700’s, the demand for technical experts in transportation, warfare, and bridge building also grew. During this time, France was acknowledged to be the foremost leader in engineering practice. The École des Ponts et Chaussees, in Paris, was the first true engineering school, established in 1747. In America several universities had been established during the 1700’s, but it was not until 1802 that the first engineering program was established in higher education, at the United States Military Academy (West Point).1 Other universities would soon offer some form of engineering education; Gardiner Lyceum, The Renssalaer School, and Norwich University are all considered to be pioneers in engineering education in America.1

Then, in 1859 the U.S. Congress passed a bill (which was later signed into law by

Abraham Lincoln in 1862) that would federally fund a system of industrial colleges in each state. This bill, known as the Morrill Act, or the Land Grant Act, was perhaps one of the most important legislative acts to help the progress of engineering and technology education in the United States. One of the primary purposes of these land-grant universities was to:

…teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.4

In 1862 there were seven engineering schools in America. By 1880, there were

over 85 engineering schools in the United States and the number continued to grow rapidly.1 As the number of engineering schools increased, many schools began creating separate curriculum for the different disciplines; for example, mining, mechanical, chemical and other specific engineering disciplines were being developed. As these engineering schools were growing throughout the country, there is evidence that some schools were interested in promoting the idea of “practical education of the industrial classes” as stated in the Morrill Act. For example, at Worchester Polytechnic Institute shop instruction was introduced to the program, and at Stevens Institute of Technology

Session ETD-315


a laboratory method of engineering instruction was started. Yet it would be several decades before engineering technology would be recognized as a separate discipline. The Introduction of Engineering Technology

Technology is often misunderstood, incorrectly defined, and questioned. There are as

many definitions for technology as there are books trying to define it. In “Foundations of Technology Education” the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) defines technology as “a body of knowledge and actions, used by people, to apply resources in designing, producing, and using products, structures and systems to extend the human potential for controlling and modifying the natural and human-made (modified) environment”.5

Engineering technology in America is just as diverse and difficult to define. This appears

to be, in part, a contributing factor in the continued marginalization of engineering technology education as a discipline. The breadth of engineering technology education is wide and varied, including at one end of the spectrum the highly scientific research and study at the frontiers of technology knowledge, and at the other end lies the simple training in routine manual skills and labor.6

While professional engineering education formally began in this country in 1802 at West Point, it appears that engineering technology education began as two-year engineering technology programs at the early mechanics institutes in the U.S. around the year 1822, although it could be argued that these programs were more typically vocational training programs. Various forms of baccalaureate engineering technology programs began to emerge in the late 1950’s. Some of the engineering technology programs being developed during this time included curriculums in aeronautical, automotive, civil, drafting, electrical, production, and industrial technology. Interestingly, organizationally these programs were often found to be part of other departments, such as business, education, industrial arts, or engineering.

The ‘Preliminary’ Grinter Report

In 1893, the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education was established. Since that time, several studies have been conducted to evaluate the content of engineering education programs and/or curriculum throughout the country. One of the original studies, known as the Mann Report, was soon followed in 1940 by the report known as “Aims and Scope of Engineering Curricula”, and then by the “Engineering Education after the War” report in 1944. It is interesting to note that in both the 1940 and the 1944 reports there were recommendations made to divide engineering curriculum into two areas; “scientific-technological” and “humanistic-social”.7 Then, in 1952 the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) organized the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering Education and commissioned L.E. Grinter to lead the committee to once again review engineering curriculum and to:

Session ETD-315


recommend the pattern or patterns that engineering education should take in order to keep pace with the rapid developments in science and technology and to educate men who will be competent to serve the needs of and provide the leadership for the engineering profession over the next quarter-century.7

After several years of research, the committee lead by L.E. Grinter published their

findings. In 1955, the report entitled Report of the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering Education, more commonly known as the “Grinter Report” was published. To this day, the Grinter Report continues to be instrumental in engineering curriculum design and organization. In this 1955 Grinter report, it refers to a ‘Preliminary Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education’ which was issued in 1953. Few people know of this ‘preliminary’ report, and information contained therein. In the preliminary report, the committee was very clear about the need for two types of engineering programs and/or curriculum; a “professional-general” and a “professional-scientific” curriculum. The committee notes that:

If engineering education is to serve two quite different demands: (1) supply engineering personnel for production, construction, operation, sales, installation of engineering equipment, etc., and (2) supply professional engineers and engineering scientists able to interpret and use for design purposes the information being provided by research in the engineering sciences, and also to advance the fields of engineering science, there will be need for greater functional divergence in engineering education.7

It was proposed that a ‘professional-general’ curriculum should allow for more

‘alternative choice’ of courses. Students in these programs would participate in more practical, problem solving engineering applications that will satisfy the needs of industry. On the other hand, the ‘professional-scientific’ program should be more math and science centric; the objective should be to “train men for the functions of research, development and design, it must rest upon a broad foundation in basic and engineering science.”7 Further, it was suggested that “in a limited number of institutions it would be possible to choose between the professional-general or the professional-scientific approach to engineering education.”7

Clearly, the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering Education chaired by L.E. Grinter

recognized the need for a sort of dual path approach to engineering education. It is interesting to note, however, that this dual path approach to engineering education was rejected by the engineering community (individuals, Institutional Committees, industrial companies, engineering educators, and societies). Thus, the final Grinter Report, published in 1955, does not make any mention of a dual path approach to engineering education, but instead includes only the professional-scientific programs and curriculum.8

Despite industry demand for a recognized engineering technology (or some sort of professional-general) program, academia has been slow to embrace this new discipline. Engineering technology continues to be marginalized by some in academia and the engineering

Session ETD-315


community, as demonstrated by engineering technology programs that have been cut from university offerings across the country.

The Emergence of Manufacturing Engineering Technology Programs

Many of the early baccalaureate engineering technology programs in the United States did not include curriculum specifically for manufacturing engineering technology. However, due to increasing demands from industry to provide increased numbers of better trained and qualified manufacturing type engineers and others destined for manufacturing management, several higher educational institutions started responding to these needs in the mid 1960’s.

There is no real clear historical date when manufacturing engineering technology, as a

separate degree in higher education, actually arrived on the scene. The discipline seems to have evolved from a number of different curriculums, including industrial technology, industrial arts, mechanical technology, machine tool technology, metals technology, and machine shop. Utah State University (USU), an early entrant into manufacturing engineering technology curriculum, demonstrates a typical evolution into the field. The original manufacturing engineering program at USU evolved from a metalworking program in industrial arts, which was within the engineering department. During the 1940’s the machine tool concept was developed and by the end of the 1940’s there was one course offered in manufacturing processes. During the 1950’s, the program was titled “Tool Engineering” and as a program within the engineering department more emphasis on math (through calculus), chemistry, physics, and engineering mechanics was placed. In 1960, the title of the program once again changed to “Tool and Manufacturing Engineering”, and then in 1964 the title became “Manufacturing Engineering Technology”.9 In 1965 USU added a Master’s degree to the Manufacturing Engineering program. In 1969, the American Society of Tool and Manufacturing Engineers’ (ASTME) Education Committee recognized Utah State University as one of the first schools in the country to recognize manufacturing engineering as a separate discipline.10 Some other schools with early manufacturing engineering technology programs included University of Bridgeport, University of Illinois, Boston University, Oregon State University, Kansas State College, Brigham Young University, Stout State College, University of Vermont, and others. Appendix 1 shows one of the first recommended curriculums by ASTME for manufacturing engineering technology at the baccalaureate level.

Manufacturing Engineering Technology Education Today. Manufacturing engineering technology, along with most engineering technology degrees, continues to struggle with its identity. Over the years, there have been proposals made within the engineering community and educational settings to merge, submerge, abolish, rename, reconfigure, and otherwise change engineering technology programs.11 One of the challenges for these engineering technology programs is to mitigate the effects that these subordination attempts have had on the discipline over the past several decades. It is interesting to note that despite strong student numbers, and nearly 100% student job placement, all engineering technology programs at Utah State University were summarily eliminated in the late1990’s to early 2000’s.

Session ETD-315


It has been shown that the trend for higher education is to place more emphasis on theory

rather than practice.12 While the need for content rich curriculum is demonstrated in many educational disciplines (such as chemistry, biology, physics, etc.), the requirement for hands-on experiential education can never be underestimated. Even in the medical field, for example, there is a significant emphasis on hands-on learning. In most medical schools in the United States, students spend nearly all of years three and four of medical school training completing various rotations getting real-world, hand-on training with patients. This sort of experiential learning is equally important in the various fields of engineering technology where the integration of theory and practice is critical for the thorough understanding, safety, and professional progress of students.

Statistical Information

In 1984 the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) created a separate category for engineering technology. Appendix 2 shows the data from the NCES for the 2006-2007 school year. This information shows that within the category of engineering technologies there were nearly 15,000 bachelor’s degrees awarded during this year, as compared to over 67,000 bachelor’s degrees in the engineering disciplines. These engineering technology degrees were divided into 50 different categories, including everything from automotive technology, to construction technology, mechanical, electrical, manufacturing technology, and many others. It is interesting to note that under the engineering category, there are only 42 different categories.13

Conclusion

In 1859 the U.S. Congress passed the Morrill Act which established Land Grant universities primarily to “promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.”4 Nearly one hundred years later, the ‘Preliminary Grinter Report’ promoted the notion that a dual track approach to engineering education is needed. Despite this preliminary report, but arguably in good faith, the engineering community has taken a more “professional-scientific” approach to engineering education as outlined in the final version of the Grinter Report.

It seems clear, however, that whether by historical foundations or by industry demand,

that a more hands-on approach to the practical application of engineering principles is needed in higher education. Engineering technology programs, such as manufacturing engineering technology, emerged because of industry demand and historical expertise. Today, many universities continue to struggle with the notion of having “engineering” and “engineering technology” as two separate and distinct academic disciplines. Wolf stated, in his article The Emerging Identity of Engineering Technology, that “engineering does not lose when engineering technology wins”.11 Engineering societies, organizations, and academia, have a duty to encourage all occupations, even all disciplines, to excel and achieve to the highest level possible. Both engineering technology and engineering have a duty to work together for the advancement of science and for the betterment of society.

Session ETD-315


References 1. McGivern, J.G. (1960). First hundred years of engineering education in the United States (1807-1907).

Spokane, WA.: Gonzaga University Press.

2. Bennett, C.A. (1937). History of manual and industrial education, up to 1870. Peoria, IL. Charles A. Bennett, Inc., Publishers.

3. Bennett, C.A. (1937). History of manual and industrial education, 1870 to 1917. Peoria, IL. Charles A. Bennett, Inc., Publishers.

4. Morrill Act. Title 7 of the United States Code, chapter 13, subchapter I. (1862). 5. Foundations of Technology Education. (1995). Council on Technology Teacher Education. Glencoe-McGraw-

Hill. 6. DeFore, J.J. (1966). Baccalaureate programs in engineering technology: A study of their emergence and some

characteristics of their content. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 7. Journal of Engineering Education. (September, 1955). Report of the committee on evaluation of engineering

education. “The Grinter Report”. 8. Ungrodt, R.J. (1987). Engineering technology, the early years. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.

Washington, D.C.

9. Allen, D.K. (1973). Curriculum performance objectives for manufacturing engineering technology. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utah State University, Logan, UT.

10. ASTME. American Society of Tool and Manufacturing Engineers. (1969). Education Committee report on

manufacturing engineering technology curriculum. Dearborn, MI. 11. Wolf, L.J. (1987). The emerging identity of engineering technology. Engineering Education, V. 77, 725-729. 12. Metcalf-Turner, P. & Fischetti, J. (1996). Professional development schools: Persisting questions and lessons

learned. Journal of Teacher Education. 47 (4), 292-299.

13. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Postsecondary annual reports, table 275.

Session ETD-315


Biographies

ROD L. FLANIGAN is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Distribution at the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK). He earned his Ph.D. from Utah State University. He spent over 25 years in the wholesale distribution industry before joining the UNK faculty in 2011. He teaches courses in fluid power, power transmission, project management, and leadership in the Industrial Distribution program. Dr. Flanigan can be reached at [email protected] DALE PORTER is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Technology at the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK). His research interests include spatial intelligence, 3-D modeling, and BIM. He currently teaches courses in construction estimating, construction scheduling, and engineering graphics.

Session ETD-315


Appendix 1: Appendix 1 is taken from the 1968 American Society of Tool and Manufacturing Engineers

(ASTME) education committee report on suggested four-year curricula for manufacturing

engineering technology degree:

Session ETD-315


Session ETD-315


Session ETD-315


Session ETD-315


Session ETD-315


Session ETD-315


Session ETD-315


Appendix 2:

National Center for Educational Statistics. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education

Sciences. Digest of Education Statistics.

Session ETD-315


Bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees conferred by degree granting institutions

2006-07

Discipline division

Bachelor's degrees

requiring 4 or 5 years

Master's degrees

Doctor's degrees (Ph.D., Ed.D., etc.)

Total Total Total1 2 5 8

All fields, total ...................... 1,524,092 604,607 60,616

Engineering and engineering technologies .... 82,072 32,162 8,123 Engineering ............................. 67,092 29,472 8,062

Engineering, general ................... 1,812 1,384 260 Aerospace, aeronautical and astronautical eng 2,828 912 234

Agricultural/biological engineering and bioeng 680 190 76 Architectural engineering ............. 664 132 4

Biomedical/medical engineering ......... 3,149 1,227 563 Chemical engineering ................... 4,492 957 835

Civil engineering, general .............. 9,462 3,220 762 Geotechnical engineering ................ 0 5 0

Structural engineering ................. 145 57 10 Transportation and highway engineering 0 86 5

Water resources engineering ........... 4 36 19 Civil engineering, other ............ 60 78 9

Computer engineering, general ....... 4,620 1,472 302 Computer hardware engineering ....... 14 10 0

Computer software engineering ..... 231 598 3 Computer engineering, other ....... 187 197 30

Electrical, electronics and communications eng 13,089 7,777 2,042 Engineering mechanics ....................... 102 62 32

Engineering physics ........................ 414 66 35 Engineering science ....................... 325 188 83

Environmental/environmental health engineer 428 534 121 Materials engineering .................... 582 542 422

Mechanical engineering .................. 16,601 4,294 1,106 Metallurgical engineering .............. 149 62 24

Mining and mineral engineering......... 129 51 12 Naval architecture and marine engineering. 338 22 6

Nuclear engineering .................... 384 221 83 Ocean engineering ..................... 147 55 6

Petroleum engineering ................ 450 225 37 Systems engineering .................. 600 1,110 78

Textile sciences and engineering ..... 140 39 30 Materials science ................... 218 173 195

Polymer/plastics engineering ....... 60 46 42 Construction engineering .......... 280 13 0

Session ETD-315


Forest engineering ............... 14 6 1 Industrial engineering .......... 2,780 1,615 301

Industrial/manufacturing engineering .. 0 0 0 Manufacturing engineering ............ 253 246 14

Operations research ................. 354 273 55 Surveying engineering .............. 34 5 3

Geological/geophysical engineering .. 119 41 13 Engineering, other ................. 678 1,235 187

Engineering technologies/construction trades 14,980 2,690 61

Engineering technologies/technicians .. 14,588 2,690 61 Engineering technology, general ..... 842 138 0

Architectural engineering technology/tech. 655 0 0 Civil engineering technology/technician .. 492 0 0

Electrical/electronic/communications eng. Tech 2,190 24 0 Laser and optical technology/technician ... 0 0 0

Telecommunications technology/technician .. 65 80 0 Electrical/electronic eng. technologies/tech 274 0 0

Biomedical technology/technician ......... 67 13 3 Electromechanical technology/electromechanical 111 0 0

Instrumentation technology/technician ...... 23 0 0 Robotics technology/technician ............. 27 0 0

Electromechanical/instrumentation and maint. 3 0 0 Heating, air conditioning and refrigeration 13 0 0

Energy management and systems technology/tech. 32 27 0 Solar energy technology/technician ......... 2 0 0

Water quality/wastewater treatment manage. 30 0 0 Environmental engineering technology/environ. 56 68 0

Hazardous materials management and waste tech. 1 6 0 Environmental control technologies/tech. 6 45 0

Plastics engineering technology/technician . 67 3 0 Metallurgical technology/technician ........ 0 0 0

Industrial technology/technician .......... 1,703 262 5 Manufacturing technology/technician ....... 589 35 0

Industrial/manufacturing technology/technician 0 0 0 Industrial production technologies/technicians 316 17 0

Occupational safety and health technology/tech 437 75 0 Quality control technology/technician ....... 8 66 0

Industrial safety technology/technician ..... 50 8 0 Quality control and safety technologies/tech 14 7 0

Aeronautical/aerospace engineering technology 64 0 0 Automotive engineering technology/technician 322 0 0

Mechanical engineering/mechanical technology 1,246 0 0 Mechanical engineering related technologies 337 0 0

Mining technology/technician .............. 4 0 0 Petroleum technology/technician ........... 14 0 0

Mining and petroleum technologies/technicians 2 1 0

Session ETD-315


Construction engineering technology/technician 1,713 98 0 Surveying technology/surveying ............. 191 7 4

Engineering-related technologies, other .... 1 0 0 Computer engineering technology/technician . 778 4 0

Computer technology/computer systems tech.. 441 0 0 Computer software technology/technician .... 68 0 0

Computer engineering technologies/technicians 0 0 0 Drafting/design engineering technologies/tech 37 0 0

CAD/CADD drafting and/or design technology 53 8 0 Electrical/elect. drafting and electrical 0 0 0

Mechanical drafting and mech drafting CAD/CADD 121 0 0 Drafting/design engineering technologies/tech 8 9 0

Engineering/industrial management ........... 368 1,562 49 Engineering technologies/technicians, other 747 127 0

Documents

The Influence of the Grinter Report on Engineering ...ciec/Proceedings_2015/ETD/ETD315_FlaniganPorter.pdf · for Engineering Education The Influence of the Grinter Report on Engineering