Transportation Engineering Curriculum:

Analytic Review of the Literature

David S. Hurwitz, A.M.ASCE 1; Kristen L. Sanford Bernhardt, M.ASCE 2;
Rod E. Turochy, M.ASCE 3; and Rhonda K. Young, M.ASCE 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Transportation engineering curricula at the undergraduate and graduate levels are critical to the development of technical com-
petency in future transportation engineering professionals—those who will be responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of safe and efficient transportation systems. This paper provides an analytic review of journal articles and refereed
conference papers addressing how transportation engineering curricula have changed over time. The literature review found 51 articles
for analysis, with an increased frequency of those publications over time. Curriculum issues described in these papers include how trans-
portation fits broadly within engineering programs and, more specifically, within civil engineering programs, which topics are addressed in
transportation courses, and how these courses attend to stakeholder needs. This analytic review of the literature provides a resource for
transportation engineering educators, administrators, and researchers to consider how transportation curricular issues have been treated
in the literature historically as the community continues to develop and implement the transportation engineering curricula of the
future. The findings will inform transportation engineering educators of the state of the practice in transportation engineering curricula.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000275. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: National Transportation Curriculum Project (NTCP); Transportation engineering curriculum; Transportation engineer-
ing education.

Introduction stakeholders. Further, ongoing concerns have been raised about the
adequacy of workforce development as much of the transportation
Transportation engineering typically is viewed as a subdiscipline workforce approaches retirement (TRB 2003; CUTC 2012).
of civil engineering, along with fields such as construction, The historical nature of these discussions notwithstanding, a
structural, geotechnical, environmental, and water resources engi- thorough literature review revealed no existing published review or
neering. However, as is the case to some extent with all civil synthesis of the literature on the topic. Thus, this topic both by the
engineering subdisciplines, certain characteristics of transportation nature of its import and lack of previous documentation seems an
engineering make it unique and present opportunities and chal- appropriate domain for an analytic literature review. Borrego et al.
lenges distinct from other civil engineering subdisciplines. For (2014) published an article documenting the lack of systematic
example, while roadway and pavement design are mechanics- literature reviews in the engineering education domain and devel-
based, other areas of transportation engineering are more closely oped a template for conducting such reviews. This approach, dis-
connected with human factors, public policy, and economics. cussed in more detail in a subsequent section, is applied in this
Anecdotally, conversation has been ongoing for decades regard- paper to examine the place of transportation engineering education
ing the best preparation for transportation professionals. Options within the academy.
include the civil engineering degree, a stand-alone degree in trans- This analytic review provides transportation engineering educa-
portation, and a variety of specialized certificates. If transportation tors and administrators with better access to the existing body of
professionals are prepared within civil engineering programs, they knowledge. Understanding these past discussions on broad issues
typically are eligible to become licensed as professional engineers, such as transportation’s role within civil engineering programs,
and the programs that prepare them must meet the ABET accredi- breadth versus depth of transportation content, and needs for addi-
tation standards for civil engineering programs. Because of the tional education or specialized degrees can lead to more productive
breadth of the transportation discipline (across modes and sectors), dialogue in the future.
questions about appropriate preparation involve a wide variety of This paper begins with a description of the methodology for the
review. Next, it discusses the results in terms of the selected articles
1
Associate Professor, Oregon State Univ., 101 Kearney Hall, Corvallis, and the content of those articles, organized by research question.
OR 97331 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected] Finally, it assesses current practices and suggests next steps for re-
2
Associate Professor, Lafayette College, 319 Acopian Engineering searchers and educators.
Center, Easton, PA 18042. E-mail: [email protected]
3
Associate Professor, Auburn Univ., 238 Harbert Engineering Center,
Auburn, AL 36849. E-mail: [email protected]
4
Associate Professor, Gonzaga Univ., Herak 212, Spokane, WA 99203. Background
E-mail: [email protected]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 30, 2015; approved on A recent application of the systematic literature review process
November 2, 2015; published online on January 25, 2016. Discussion per- described by Borrego et al. (2014) in transportation engineering
iod open until June 25, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for education focused on instructional practices (Hurwitz et al. 2015).
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Professional Issues That study specifically considered two research questions: (1) What
in Engineering Education and Practice, © ASCE, ISSN 1052-3928. instructional practices have transportation engineering educators

© ASCE 04016003-1 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 employed to improve student learning at the undergraduate and Methodology
graduate levels? (2) What techniques have been used to measure
student learning in transportation engineering education? Results The analytic review of the literature described here adapted the ap-
indicated that a wide variety of simulation, visualization, concept proach modeled by Borrego et al. (2014). The approach entails a
mapping, and other active learning techniques have been imple- four-step process to make sure that it addresses the research ques-
mented in transportation engineering classrooms; however, they tions that are asked. Specifically, Borrego et al. suggest that re-
have been developed and implemented predominantly by a re- searchers (1) define the research questions, (2) define the scope of
searcher or a team of researchers at a single institution. There is inquiry, (3) find sources, and (4) apply appropriate exclusion cri-
a clear need for work that promotes more widespread adoption teria (Fig. 1).
of these techniques. Numerous techniques for measuring student
learning have been documented in the transportation engineering
Research Questions
education literature, including the use of surveys with open-ended
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

questions, in-person interviews, the direct assessment of student The research questions under consideration determine whether any
work, and concept mapping. However, the most compelling assess- particular article should be included for analysis. As such, the ques-
ments include both qualitative and quantitative evidence. There is a tions must be defined carefully so as to capture the existing liter-
clear need to more rigorously evaluate the student learning resulting ature while focusing on the particular interest of the researchers.
from the implementation of novel instructional practices in trans- The primary goal of this analytic literature review is to document
portation engineering classrooms. how transportation engineering curricula have changed over time.

STEP I: DEFINE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Where does transportation engineering fit within engineering programs?
How does transportation engineering fit within civil engineering programs?
What topics are addressed within transportation engineering courses?
How do the topics covered in transportation engineering courses meet stakeholder needs?

STEP II: DEFINE SCOPE

Only consider refereed journal articles and conference papers
Establish exclusion criteria

STEP III: FIND SOURCES

Search engines used: TRID, Google Scholar, etc.
Archives used: TRR, ASCE JPI, ASEE Proc., etc.

STEP IV: APPLY

EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Does the source involve:
A) professional
development or continuing education;
B) K-12 education
C) disciplines not directly
related to transportation
engineering

INCLUSION EXCLUSION
CRITERIA CRITERIA
MET MET

CURRICULAR
ISSUES:
REMOVE
Content,
STUDY
Classes,
Curriculum

Fig. 1. Flowchart of systematic literature review process

© ASCE 04016003-2 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 To address this research goal, the following research questions were the context of a specific degree program, such as civil engineering,
developed: were also included.
• Where does transportation engineering fit within engineering
programs?
• How does transportation engineering fit within civil engineering Results
programs?
• What topics are addressed within transportation engineering Results are organized into two main sections: a description of the
courses? final article database and an examination of papers that focused on
• How do the topics covered in transportation engineering courses curricular issues in transportation engineering education. Each
meet stakeholder needs? researcher independently reviewed the manuscripts, and the manu-
scripts were then discussed by the group of researchers. Thus, the
interpretations of the articles reviewed resulted from the collective
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Finding and Cataloging Sources understanding of all four researchers.

Because this article is intended to serve as a reference for the
broader community and because the authors are concerned about Final Article Database
the quality of the articles being reviewed, the scope of sources was After exclusion criteria were applied, a total of 51 articles (36 ref-
limited to refereed journal articles and refereed conference papers. ereed journal and 15 refereed conference articles) were included in
The following search engines and digital archives, in addition to the database for further analysis; all 51 articles were selected for
article reference lists, were examined for relevant articles: discussion in this paper. Journal articles were sourced from the
• ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education Transportation Research Record (TRR): Journal of the Transpor-
and Practice: http://ascelibrary.org/journal/jpepe3; tation Research Board, the ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in
• ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings: http://www.asee.org/ Engineering Education and Practice (ASCE JPI), and the Institute
search/proceedings; of Transportation Engineers Journal (ITE Journal). Conference
• European Journal of Engineering Education: http://www proceedings were sourced from the ASEE Annual Conference Pro-
.tandfonline.com/toc/ceee20/current#.VBqT7fldWSo; ceedings (ASEE Proc.), the ITE Annual Conference Proceedings
• Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com; (ITE Proc.), and ITS Quarterly. The 2014 Journal Citation Report
• Web of Science (Thomson Reuters): http://wokinfo.com/; lists the impact factor for TRR as 0.556, ASCE JPI as 0.716, and
• International Journal of Engineering Education: http://www ITE Journal as 0.147 (Thomson Reuters 2015). No impact factors
.ijee.ie/; for the remaining journals and conference proceedings are avail-
• ITE Journal and Annual Meetings: http://www.ite.org/library/; able. The publication years for articles included in the database
• Journal of Engineering Education: http://onlinelibrary.wiley range from 1969 to 2014 (Fig. 2).
.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2168-9830; Fig. 2 shows that more has been published in this area of inquiry
• Transportation Research International Database (TRID): http:// in the 2000s than previously, suggesting that interest is increasing
trid.trb.org/; and and that scholars are recognizing the importance of publishing
• Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings: http://erm their discussions of these questions. In the publications included
.asee.org/frontiers.html. for analysis, the average number of authors was 2.4 (median 2),
In each archive, numerous combinations of the following search with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 8 authors (excluding
terms were used: committee-written publications); the average number of citations
• Education, in these publications was 16 (median 10), with a minimum of zero
• Instruction, and a maximum of 132 citations. Given these averages, it is
• Instructional practices, reasonable to say that the previous work was collaborative and
• Traffic, grounded in the literature.
• Transport, Fig. 3 compares the development of the body of literature deal-
• Transportation, ing with curriculum issues and with the literature on instructional
• Transportation curriculum, practices. The data for the journal articles and conference papers
• Transportation education, that focused on instructional practices were originally documented
• Transportation engineering curriculum, and in Hurwitz et al. (2015). This figure shows that the curriculum is-
• Transportation engineering education curriculum. sues discussed in this paper date further back but have a lower
frequency over the last 5 years, indicating that more of the recent
Criteria for Inclusion or Exclusion discussion is focused on how transportation engineering is being
taught as opposed to what is being taught.
Based on the research questions, criteria were developed for includ- A nearly 25 year gap separates the first identified paper discus-
ing relevant sources and excluding those outside of the scope. sing transportation engineering curriculum issues (1969) and the
Specifically, the focus was on collegiate undergraduate and first paper discussing instructional practices (1994). It also appears
graduate transportation education. Therefore, articles focusing on that relatively recent papers focused on instructional practices in
K-12 education, informal education, professional development, transportation engineering education have been published at a
and continuing education were excluded. Articles focusing on other higher frequency. From 2010 through 2013, papers on instruction
subdisciplines of civil engineering were also excluded. practices were published more than twice as frequently as those on
Within this scope, articles focusing on curricular issues were curriculum issues.
included. Curricular issues included concerns such as the assigning
of content to particular courses and related tradeoffs between
Evolution of Curricular Issues
breadth and depth, sequencing of transportation courses at the
undergraduate level, and changes in curriculum in response to The literature on curricular issues was broadly categorized
changes in the profession. Papers focusing on transportation within into articles that discussed programs for future transportation

© ASCE 04016003-3 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 6

5
NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS

4
Other Pubs.
TRB Proc.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Traffic Eng.
3 ITS Quarterly
TRR
ITE Proc.
ITE J.
2
ASEE Proc.
ASCE JPI

0
1969

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

2004

2009

2014
PUBLICATION YEAR

Fig. 2. Frequency of refereed journal and conference publications addressing transportation curriculum issues, by year

7
NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS

0
1969

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

2004

2009

2014

PUBLICATION YEAR

Curriculum Issues Instructional Practices

Fig. 3. Frequency of refereed journal and conference publications focused on curriculum issues and instructional practices, by year

© ASCE 04016003-4 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 professionals within the university system, articles on workforce education requirement, and in August 2014, NCEES removed
requirements and degree selection at the university level, articles the language from the Model Law and Model Rules over concerns
on how transportation courses fit into engineering degree programs, that it was confusing to engineering students and educators since it
and articles that discuss the content of the transportation courses. had not been adopted by any state board. NCEES is in the process
of developing a position statement on the need for additional edu-
cation prior to professional practice to replace the Model Law and
Where Does Transportation Engineering Fit within Model Rule text that was recently removed.
Engineering Programs? A millennium paper from the Transportation Research Board’s
What many believe to be the first engineering school in the world, Committee on Transportation Education and Training characterized
the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, was founded in 1747 the history of professional transportation education as beginning as
with the objective of improving transportation in France (Turner nonformal, apprenticeship training and moving to college-based
et al. 1992). In the United States, civil engineering education de- engineering programs, to a new era of stand-alone transportation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

veloped through two parallel paths in the late 1700s and 1800s; one degree programs (Manning 2000). People working in the transpor-
path was through apprenticeship training, the other through formal tation subdiscipline of travel behavior modeling recognized the
education (Turner et al. 1992). The areas of transportation facility growing divide between the education and required skills of trans-
design and construction (roadways, canals, and railways) repre- portation modelers and held a workshop at a major international
sented the primary tasks of these early civil engineers (Turner et al. conference to determine what a multidisciplinary degree would
1992; Sinha et al. 2002). The subdiscipline of traffic engineering look like for that field (Chow et al. 2013). Morgan State University
first became recognized in the United States in the early 1920s, offers a transportation-specific Bachelor of Science degree that is
with the first course in traffic engineering in the United States being accredited by the Applied Science Commission of ABET (2014).
offered in 1926 (Hurd 1969). From these early beginnings, the At this time, the move to stand-alone transportation degrees has not
primary pipeline for transportation professionals in this country been as widespread as predicted at the turn of the century.
has remained engineering. A survey of Institute of Transportation University-based certificate programs are becoming increas-
Engineers (ITE) members in 1989 found that over 90% of its mem- ingly popular for the transportation profession, with over 20 iden-
bers had at least one engineering degree (Lipinski and Wilson tified programs in the United States (Joh and Li 2015). Most of
1992). More recently, that percentage was found to have decreased these programs use traditional face-to-face delivery methods, but
to 77%, with 93.5% of the engineering degrees identified as being four of the certificate programs have online delivery as an option
civil engineering degrees (Lipinski 2005). or are fully online. At the University of Sao Paulo at Sao Carlos in
Debate on whether the transportation engineering profession Brazil, undergraduate civil engineering students can receive a cer-
is best served by traditional civil engineering programs has been tificate of special studies from the Department of Transportation
ongoing for decades. In 1969, Hurd characterized the tradeoffs Engineering if they focus their elective courses in the transportation
between programs with highly specialized coursework that leads area (Prado da Silva et al. 2014). The University of Wisconsin-
to greater technical proficiency in a relatively narrow area versus Madison developed an interdisciplinary Transportation Manage-
programs that appreciate the problem-solving approaches and ment and Policy graduate certificate program that requires 17 credit
methods of other disciplines that come from a broad, multidiscipli- hours aimed at creating more well-rounded transportation profes-
nary degree (Hurd 1969). This debate was echoed in a follow-up sionals (Waidley and Bittner 2008).
article on traffic engineering education in Germany (Retzko 1970).
European higher education has recognized the need to increase
How Does Transportation Engineering Fit within Civil
the preparation time for specialty professions, which led to the
Engineering Programs?
signing of the Bologna Declaration in 1999 to harmonize higher
education across Europe (Perkins 2009). This resulted in the re- Lipinski (2005) looked at transportation education and recruitment
quirement for engineers to complete 3 years of basic engineering issues with respect to changes in accreditation and credit hour
coursework to attain a bachelor’s degree, followed by 2 years reductions in civil engineering programs as well as the proposed
of specialized coursework that culminates in a master’s degree change to make a master’s degree the entry-level degree for the civil
(Perkins 2009). This is somewhat similar to the ASCE Policy engineering profession. This article reported that the number of
465 adopted in 2001 that supports a master’s degree or equivalent credit hours in the typical civil engineering program decreased
as a prerequisite of licensure and the practice of civil engineering from a range of 150 to 155 credit hours in the 1940s to 133 h or
(Lipinski 2005). An article by Hurd in 1971 indicated that there was fewer in current programs. Much of the content that has been re-
a trend to increase engineering undergraduate programs from 4 to moved from the curriculum is engineering content since the number
5 years but that this trend was viewed as unpopular by the profes- of math and science credits has remained unchanged, and general
sion because it delayed students’ entry into the workforce (Hurd education and nontechnical skills within programs have increased
1971). Also in 1971, Juanzems published an article detailing (Lipinski 2005). In recent years, the number of credit hours has
the development of the first graduate transportation engineering been relatively constant, with the average number of credit hours
program in Brazil. The development of the program, which was for undergraduate civil engineering programs being 130.4 in 2002,
focused on air and highway transportation, was motivated by a con- 130.8 in 2004, and 130.0 in 2011 (Russell and Stouffer 2005;
cern that all of the requisite courses for a transportation engineering Turochy 2006; Fridley 2011).
focus could not be incorporated into existing undergraduate pro- Tooley (1996) discussed the expected impacts of the ABET
grams (Juanzems 1971). 2000 Criteria on transportation engineering preparation and noted
In 2006, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and anecdotally that graduate students who had participated in a cur-
Surveying (NCEES) added language to its Model Law and Model riculum under the (at that time proposed) ABET 2000 Criteria were
Rules requiring a master’s degree or equivalent for initial engineer- better prepared than their counterparts who had not participated in
ing licensure based on the council’s belief that significant revisions such a curriculum.
were needed to engineering education (NCEES 2014). Currently, A 2005 study using data collected from 90 of the 218 accredited
no state engineering licensing board has adopted the additional civil engineering programs in 2002 found that 81% of the programs

© ASCE 04016003-5 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 required at least one transportation engineering course (Russell and to personal interests and values as well as factors influencing their
Stouffer 2005). Of those that required a transportation course, 9% choice of specialization. The most popular specialization selected
required a second course, and 9% required a laboratory experience by the survey respondents was structures (23%), and transportation
in transportation. A similar study of Canadian universities found was the second highest choice at 12%. The study went on to con-
that 62% of their 26 civil engineering programs required one course clude that there was a potential for a higher percentage of under-
or fewer in transportation (Perkins 2009). A study conducted in graduate students to choose the transportation profession. Two
2012 found that 88% of the U.S. accredited civil engineering pro- main recommendations resulted from this study. The first was to
grams taught an introductory transportation course and that 79% show freshman and sophomore students that transportation engi-
required this course (Turochy et al. 2013). This study found that neering provides dynamic and varied career options. The second
25% of the introductory courses had a laboratory component. A recommendation was to increase the number of and better publicize
1994 civil engineering alumni survey at Southern Polytechnic State transportation internship programs.
University found that over 50% of its graduates were employed in A comprehensive study on transportation workforce issues in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

transportation or transportation-related fields (Currin 2001). The 2003 identified the dual challenges of expanded technical skills
survey also found that these students felt that the one required required of transportation professionals and anticipated workforce
course they took in the transportation area did not adequately pre- shortages (TRB 2003). Ten years earlier, a study by the Institute of
pare them for their current employment. The alumni survey results Transportation Engineers also highlighted challenges with recruit-
led the university to expand its transportation course offerings ment of transportation professionals and pointed out that the supply
within the undergraduate civil engineering program. from the traditional civil engineering pool would be inadequate to
The study conducted in 2012 also explored the background of meet the anticipated demand, and that more focus on underrepre-
the instructors of the introductory class and found that 14% of the sented groups, including ethnic minorities and women, would be
courses were being taught by adjunct faculty (Turochy et al. 2013). needed (Mason and Lostival 1993).
The study also found that 85% of the faculty teaching the introduc-
tory transportation course had a background in transportation, in-
dicating that 15% of the faculty had a background in a field other What Topics Are Addressed within Transportation
than transportation. Engineering Courses?
With the majority of transportation professionals coming from Several issues pertaining to transportation engineering curricula
a civil engineering background, questions arise as to (1) how to have been well documented. The content of transportation engi-
compete with the other disciplines within civil engineering for neering coursework, particularly the first or introductory course,
workforce recruitment, and (2) how to incorporate the specialized has been examined from the perspectives of educators and employ-
skills that transportation employers want from a degree programs ers. The fields of transportation planning, intelligent transportation
with such a breadth of content (ITE Technical Council Committee systems, and facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists are among
2-32 1990; Lipinski and Wilson 1992; Agrawal and Dill 2008). the subspecialties to which significant attention has been devoted.
Currently there are 233 ABET-accredited, undergraduate civil en- Alignment of coursework with knowledge expectations in the
gineering programs in the United States (ABET 2014) that awarded workplace and within the overall civil engineering curriculum has
over 12,000 civil engineering bachelor degrees in 2013 (ASEE been studied extensively. Sinha et al. (2002) provide a history of
2014), which represents a substantial pipeline for recruiting trans- transportation education and categorize the profession into three
portation professionals. Recruiting from the civil engineering main components: (1) design, construction, and maintenance of
pipeline requires that a potential student first be attracted to civil facilities; (2) planning, project development, and financing and
engineering and then to a specialization in transportation (ITE management; and (3) operations and logistics. Similarly, in 1971,
Technical Council Committee 2-32 1990). Hurd described the evolution of the transportation profession in
While the different civil engineering programs offer varying five distinct steps: (1) the design and construction of highways,
degrees of specialization in transportation, currently there are no (2) addressing the rising problems of traffic safety and congestion
ABET accredited transportation engineering programs (ABET as more highways were being constructed, (3) the need for ad-
2014). As previously noted, there is a specialized transportation vanced planning of facilities to meet future demand, (4) the reali-
program at Morgan State University that is accredited by ABET zation that travel could likely not be accommodated purely by
through its Applied Science Commission (as opposed to the Engi- single-occupant vehicles, and (5) final recognition of the impacts
neering Commission). that transportation systems have on society and the environment
A 1986 study on career guidance in engineering looked at influ- (Hurd 1971).
encing factors for career selection and found that there was no sin- The first course in transportation engineering is a critical step in
gle method of obtaining career information that was independently the development of future transportation professionals because it is
effective (ITE Technical Council Committee 2-32 1990). An infor- the first exposure for many students to the dynamic and varied
mation report published by ITE used the results from this study range of career choices within this field (Agrawal and Dill 2008).
along with survey results to characterize three areas needing im- This course serves as a general survey as well as a preparatory
provement in transportation workforce recruitment: (1) the image course for more specialized electives in transportation engineering
of the civil engineering and transportation engineering professions, subspecialties. Factors to consider in selecting topics to address in
(2) average beginning salaries for civil/transportation engineers this course range from relationship to other coursework and the
compared with other engineering disciplines, and (3) the profes- overall civil engineering curriculum, to institutional setting and
sional and social status of civil/transportation engineers (ITE constituencies, to coverage of material that may appear on the Fun-
Technical Council Committee 2-32 1990). damentals of Engineering Examination (Currin 2000; Turochy
In a 2008 study looking at a similar issue, Agrawal and 2006). The priorities of the profession and of educators regarding
Dill surveyed 1,852 undergraduate students in civil engineering course topics have been measured many times; for most topics
from 56 different U.S. universities to determine the factors those the priority level has changed little over time (ITE Technical
students used to select a specialization area within civil engineering Council Committee 2-15 1979; Khisty 1986; Turochy 2006, 2013).
(Agrawal and Dill 2008). The survey included questions relating For example, an examination of the ranks of 34 potential course

© ASCE 04016003-6 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 topics from a survey of 43 educators and a survey of 108 practicing Other subspecialties that tend not to be in the top group of
transportation engineers reveals that 9 of the top 10 topics in each candidate course topics in past surveys have also received some
stakeholder group priority list are the same (although the order is attention. The relatively young field of intelligent transportation
different), and a rank correlation coefficient of 0.93 exists between systems (ITSs) has been the focus of several curriculum re-
the two rank-ordered lists (Turochy 2013). Key core topics, such as views and proposals. In the early days of ITS, a paradigm for edu-
roadway geometric design, highway capacity analysis, transporta- cating the so-called new transportation professional was proposed
tion planning, and traffic control devices, have been near the top of (Sussman 1995). An evaluation of the then emerging field of ITS
each list across time and both stakeholder groups. However, a few included a survey of ITS-focused organizations, and the need for an
topics hold quite different positions in each list (for example, edu- interdisciplinary approach to preparing engineers for employment
cators placed a much higher priority on driver behavior than did in the ITS field was identified (Boile et al. 1997). This study also
practitioners, and the reverse was true for transportation economics) noted that only a broad overview of ITS could be incorporated into
(Turochy 2013). the undergraduate civil engineering curriculum and that most rel-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

One question that arises when considering candidate topics evant coursework would take place at the master’s degree level.
for inclusion in the course pertains to an optimal tradeoff point A strong role for continuing education in this rapidly evolving field
between breadth of topics addressed and depth within each topic. was also identified (Boile et al. 1997). More often, the ITS sub-
Several efforts to address basic questions of content and, more specialty has been described as a component of transportation sys-
deeply, an approach to identifying core concepts, knowledge tables, tems management and operations (TSMO). The skills required by
and learning outcomes have been undertaken in recent years. A this field were discussed by Humphrey, who concluded that there
2007 survey of instructors for the first course found that 65% of was a need for technology-based skills and continuous education
instructors focus mainly on the highway traffic mode, while 24% (Humphrey 2000).
use a multimodal perspective (Kyte 2009). The three most fre- More recently, an effort to document the extent of coverage of
quently cited course topics in that survey correspond to three of bicycle and pedestrian issues was undertaken (Dill and Weigand
the main phases of the transportation facility life cycle: transpor- 2010). This study found that just over half of introductory trans-
tation planning, geometric design, and traffic operations. A review portation engineering courses explicitly include bicycle and pedes-
trian topics; in about half of these cases only 2 h or less were
of syllabi from several institutions found that a course structure
devoted to the topic. Among bicycle and pedestrian topics, safety
focused on these three areas is a typical structure for the first course.
for these vulnerable users ranked as the most important topic to
A conference held in 2009 focused primarily on the 40 or so contact
address. An effort to redesign a transit systems planning course
hours this course provides; the objectives of the conference were
to maximize the usefulness of the immense volume of data avail-
to map the learning domain for transportation engineering, foster
able to such systems was recently undertaken (Lorion et al. 2014).
development of active learning environments, and provide an im-
The researchers noted a lack of advanced data-driven modeling in
petus for the sharing of curricular materials (Kyte et al. 2010). A
current transit planning education as well as challenges in moving
group of educators then used a learning taxonomy-driven approach research results into practice were identified. Other studies have
to develop a set of core concepts and desired learning outcomes for examined the extent of coverage of railroad engineering and asset
the first course (Sanford Bernhardt et al. 2010). A set of knowledge management topics (Lautala and Sproule 2009; Bittner 2006;
tables was developed for seven candidate course content areas: traf- Smadi and Akili 2006).
fic operations, transportation planning, geometric design, transpor-
tation finance, transportation economics, traffic safety, and transit
and nonmotorized modes (Bill et al. 2011). Pilot studies of the Meeting Stakeholder Needs
implementation of this approach to course design were carried
A survey of public- and private-sector transportation engineering
out at three different institutions, and strengths and opportunities
employers’ expectations of student knowledge upon entering the
for improvements to this approach were identified (Young et al. workforce with a BSCE or an MSCE was conducted in 2005 by
2011, 2012). the ITE Transportation Education Council (Thomas 2006). High-
In addition to the efforts focused on the general transportation way capacity and geometric design were identified as the more
engineering course content described earlier, documentation of important topics for undergraduate proficiency, while highway
educational efforts within selected subspecialties has occurred as capacity and the use of transportation publications were the most
well. Perhaps the most activity has occurred in the transportation important topics for graduate students (Thomas 2006).
planning area. A review of transportation planning coverage in both Ultimately the goal of educating transportation engineering stu-
urban planning and civil engineering programs found generally ad- dents is to prepare them for the transition into the workplace, which
equate coverage of topics and that the largest gap between topic leads to employer expectations about the skills and knowledge
importance and coverage was not in highly technical topics but students should have at the time of graduation. As mentioned pre-
instead in communication skills and public relations (Handy et al. viously, the differences between faculty and practitioners in their
2002). The case for incorporation of skills associated with inter- perceptions of the relative importance of transportation topics
modal transportation, public involvement, ethics, and communica- covered in the introductory course has been studied and found
tions in urban transportation planning courses was made so that to be quite similar, particularly in the importance of key core topics
graduates would be better prepared upon entering the workforce (ITE Technical Council Committee 2-15 1979; Khisty 1986;
(Khisty and Kikuchi 2003). A graduate-level course in urban trans- Turochy 2006, 2013). Also mentioned in an earlier section was
portation planning was revised accordingly. A subsequent nation- the desire by the profession for specialized transportation degrees,
wide survey of transportation planning courses that examined the transportation certificate programs, or the requirement for addi-
breadth and depth of topics covered found a wide variety in cover- tional education, all of which are driven by a need employers have
age and extent but contended that a generalized syllabus, which for additional technical skills in recent graduates.
could then be adjusted as needed at each institution, could be de- A novel example of developing an introduction to transporta-
veloped (Zhou and Soot 2006). Such a syllabus was subsequently tion engineering class based on a highly specified workplace
developed (Zhou and Schweitzer 2009). expectation can be found in the preparation of civil engineers

© ASCE 04016003-7 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 for military service. Melin et al. (2010) developed a required under- or geotechnical engineering. Another opportunity is to encourage
graduate introduction to transportation engineering class with instructors in other disciplines to be more intentional about drawing
experienced-based learning to better prepare civil engineering stu- clearer connections between other civil engineering sub-disciplines
dents for practicing as members of the Army Corps of Engineers in and transportation engineering.
a deployed environment. Some of the unique factors associated The content of transportation engineering courses was the focus
with the design and construction of a road in a deployed environ- of the third research question. The experiences of students in these
ment can include security concerns, cultural and social considera- courses have been found to be critical to students’ decisions on
tions, and lack of material availability. transportation engineering as a career path. In about two-thirds
Kyte et al. (2003) described the development of a traffic signal of the institutions offering transportation engineering courses,
summer workshop in response to the needs of the transportation the first course is focused on the highway mode, while in other
profession, specifically by identifying competencies required by transportation engineering programs, the class is conducted using
today’s transportation professional that are not currently addressed a multimodal approach. No best practice was argued for in the lit-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in traditional transportation engineering classrooms. Those skills erature; however, two factors could be considered in making the
included using traffic signal equipment, using and programing traf- decision regarding which approach to adopt: (1) the context of
fic controllers, and developing signal timing plans for fixed time the home institution—for example, is the institution situated in a
and actuated signal controllers, among others (Kyte et al. 2003). large urban region with significant public transit, or is the institu-
These skills were packaged into a 5-day summer workshop. tion located in a small college town? (2) the anticipated career mar-
ket for the institution’s graduates. Over the years, a high degree of
Discussion consistency regarding the topics to be addressed in the first course
has been expressed by transportation engineers. A recent survey of
The first research question looked to the literature to determine educators found strong agreement with practicing engineers regard-
where transportation engineering fits within undergraduate engi- ing course topic priorities. A desire for coverage of transportation
neering programs and found that, while this question has been planning, intelligent transportation systems, and bicycle and pedes-
asked for over a century, there does not appear to be a definitive trian facilities in transportation engineering courses has also been
answer. The main issue around this question seems to be the trade- documented.
off between the broad, multidisciplinary, problem-solving skills The literature pertaining to the fourth and final research ques-
developed in a civil engineering degree program versus the special- tion, how well the university education system is meeting transpor-
ized technical skills that come from a transportation-specific degree tation engineering stakeholder needs, is diverse, ranging from
program. For early career transportation professionals this tradeoff surveying employer expectations and professional beliefs on the
was viewed as the difference between apprenticeship training ver- importance of different transportation topics being covered in
sus formal engineering education. At times in the literature it has the classroom to workplace training through specialized workshops
been argued that the trend was toward 5-year degrees, with at least a and internship experiences. Similar to the first research question,
portion of these years spent in specialized transportation course- there does not appear to be consensus on what best serves the pro-
work, but that trend was never fully realized. The main concern fession, nor is there a clear path forward to addressing the identified
expressed in the literature with longer duration undergraduate de- issues and professional needs.
grees is the impact on the profession of delaying students’ entrance Recent visions for engineering education advocate breadth at
to the workforce. If undergraduate degrees transitioned to a 5-year the undergraduate level, followed by depth at the graduate and pro-
timeline, the profession would lose one cohort of students for fessional levels. For example, the National Academy of Engineer-
1 year, after which students presumably would graduate at similar ing’s Engineer of 2020 and the American Society of Civil
rates. However, concerns about whether students would choose to Engineers’ (ASCE) Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025 and Civil
pursue a 5-year degree (rather than another field of engineering that Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century suggest that
offers 4-year degree) remain. engineers in the coming decades will require skills that typically are
The primary concern with specialized transportation degrees is acquired during an undergraduate education that includes course-
the loss of student recruitment from the civil engineering pipeline. work in the liberal arts as well as science and engineering (NAE
If students have to self-identify with transportation engineering 2004; ASCE 2007, 2008). Thus, these organizations seem to sup-
too early in their career, many future transportation professionals port the view that more specialized degrees at the undergraduate
may be lost. For students within civil engineering, one possible ap- level, such as in transportation engineering, may not be desirable.
proach to counteracting this effect would be to position a required Further, ASCE’s Policy 465: Academic Prerequisites for Licensure
course in transportation engineering earlier in the curriculum than and Professional Practice promotes the idea that formal education
the junior year, as is most typical. The current trend to address the beyond the undergraduate degree should be required before some-
tradeoff between broad versus focused education appears to be in one becomes eligible for licensure (ASCE 2015). While there
the use of certificate programs to provide additional specialization. appears to be consistent support for the provision of specialization
The second research question investigated how transportation in transportation engineering at the graduate level, it is less clear
engineering should fit into civil engineering programs. The major- what level of specialization should be provided at the undergradu-
ity of ABET-accredited civil engineering programs require at least ate level. There is, however, an opportunity to promote additional
one class in transportation engineering; however, considering the connections to and content in transportation engineering while rec-
fact that a significant proportion of civil engineering graduates find ognizing that undergraduate civil engineering education is signifi-
employment in transportation or transportation-related fields, it can cantly constrained by numerous factors.
be argued that the current allocation of classwork at the under-
graduate level does not adequately reflect employment outcomes. Conclusions
One possible approach to resolving this apparent imbalance would
be to increase the number of required transportation classes at the There is a need for analytic literature reviews in transportation
undergraduate level from one to two since it is not uncommon to engineering education; few have been conducted, though they
see a two-course requirement in subdisciplines, such as structures can provide immense value to educators and researchers alike.

© ASCE 04016003-8 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 These metalevel evaluations are critical to understanding the body search for its evolving identity.” Travel behavior research: Current
of knowledge that has already been produced in transportation en- foundations, future prospects, Lulu, Raleigh, NC.
gineering education. They serve to inform educators about the state Currin, T. R. (2000). “Filling the void of transportation engineering edu-
of the practice in a more effective way and aid researchers in the cation at the baccalaureate level.” Proc., ITE Annual Meeting, Institute
establishment of new research directions. of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, DC.
Currin, T. R. (2001). “Transportation engineering and its role in the under-
For this analytic review, literature was collected and interpreted
graduate civil engineering.” Proc., ASEE Annual Conf., American
by a group of four academicians who are subject matter experts, Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Washington, DC.
and as such it may not be representative of the entire population of CUTC (Council of University Transportation Centers). (2012). “National
academics or all stakeholders involved in transportation engineer- transportation workforce summit summary of results.” Washington,
ing curriculum issues at the undergraduate level. By establishing DC.
exclusion criteria for non-peer-reviewed publications, thought- Dill, J., and Weigand, L. (2010). “Incorporating bicycle and pedestrian
provoking ideas that are taking place either offline or in other topics in university transportation courses.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2198,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

venues may have been overlooked. 1–7.

Opportunities for additional work in the area of curriculum Fridley, K. J. (2011). “Today’s BSCE: A survey of credit hour require-
development include the following: ments.” Proc., ASEE Annual Conf., American Society for Engineering
• Development of materials that will support civil engineering Education (ASEE), Washington, DC.
faculty members in connecting transportation concepts across Handy, S., Weston, L., Song, J., and Lane, K. M. D. (2002). “Education
the civil engineering subdisciplines; of transportation planning professionals.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1812,
• Reinvestigation of questions last addressed more than one or 151–160.
Humphrey, T. F. (2000). “Educational expectations of transportation
two decades ago in the context of changes in education and
engineering employers.” Proc., ITE Annual Meeting, Institute of Trans-
engineering practice; portation Engineers (ITE), Washington, DC.
• Reassessment at regular intervals of transportation educator and Hurd, F. W. (1969). “Trends in traffic engineering education.” Traffic Eng.,
practitioner priorities for essential skills and knowledge for new 13–16.
graduates; and Hurd, F. W. (1971). “Highway engineering education in the United States.”
• Evaluation of civil engineering skills upon graduation and their Inst. Transp. Eng. J., 26–36.
relation to employer expectations. Hurwitz, D., Sanford Bernhardt, K. L., Turochy, R., and Young, R. (2015).
This paper documented the literature relevant to transportation “Transportation engineering instructional practices: An analytic review
engineering curricula at the undergraduate level. Specifically, four of the literature.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2480, 45–54.
research subquestions were considered through the analysis of 51 ITE Technical Council Committee 2-15. (1979). “Evaluation of education
unique peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers. The resources for a select group of transportation subjects.” Inst. Transp.
findings of this paper inform practitioners and researchers in trans- Eng. J., 49, 30–31.
portation engineering education of the state of the practice in the ITE Technical Council Committee 2-32. (1990). “An informational report:
transportation engineering curriculum and identify opportunities Attracting students to a professional career in transportation engineer-
ing.” Inst. Transp. Eng. J., 60, 42–48.
for further research and dialogue. This paper provides a unique
Joh, K., and Li, W. (2015). “Developing and interdisciplinary transportation
model arguing for the importance of analytic literature reviews
certificate program for today’s transportation workforce.” Proc., 94th
to promote the advancement of research in transportation engineer- Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
ing education. Juanzems, P. J. (1971). “Graduate transportation engineering education in
Brazil.” Inst. Transp. Eng. J., 41, 36–40.
Khisty, C. J. (1986). “Undergraduate transportation education.” Transp.
References Res. Rec., 1101, 1–3.
Khisty, C. J., and Kikuchi, S. (2003). “Urban transportation planning edu-
ABET. (2014). “Find accredited programs.” 〈http://main.abet.org/aps/ cation revisited: Reading the dials and steering the ship.” Transp. Res.
Accredited programsearch.aspx〉 (Jul. 13, 2014). Rec., 1848, 57–63.
Agrawal, A. W., and Dill, J. (2008). “To be a transportation engineer
Kyte, M. (2009). “What should undergraduate civil engineering students
or not?: How civil engineering students choose a specialization.”
know about transportation engineering?” Inst. Transp. Eng. J., 79(5),
Transp. Res. Rec., 2046, 76–84.
26–29.
ASCE. (2007). “The vision for civil engineering in 2015.” Reston, VA.
Kyte, M., Abdel-Rahim, A., and Lines, M. (2003). “Traffic signal opera-
ASCE. (2008). “Civil engineering body of knowledge for the 21st century
tions education through hands-on experience lessons learned from a
preparing the civil engineer for the future.” Reston, VA.
workshop prototype.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1848, 50–56.
ASCE. (2015). “Policy statement 465—Academic prerequisites for licen-
sure and professional practice.” Reston, VA. Kyte, M., Bill, A., and Young, R. (2010). “Everything you need to know
ASEE (American Society of Engineering Education). (2014). “Engineering about transportation engineering in 40 hours.” Inst. Transp. Eng. J.,
data management system.” 〈http://edms.asee.org/session/new〉 (Jul. 13, 80(10), 40–43.
2014). Lautala, P. T., and Sproule, W. J. (2009). “Rebuilding railroad engineering
Bill, A., et al. (2011). “Development of knowledge tables and learning education in the United States with industry-university partnerships.”
outcomes for an introductory course in transportation engineering.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2109, 37–44.
Transp. Res. Rec., 2211, 27–35. Lipinski, M. E. (2005). “ASCE Policy 465: Impact on transportation en-
Bittner, J. (2006). “Transportation asset management in for-credit higher gineering workforce development.” Inst. Transp. Eng. J., 75(12),
education course offerings.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1957, 19–22. 24–27.
Boile, M. P., Spasovic, L. N., and Pignataro, L. J. (1997). “Developing Lipinski, M. E., and Wilson, E. M. (1992). “Undergraduate transportation
a market-sensitive intelligent transportation systems educational pro- education: Who is responsible?” Inst. Transp. Eng. J., 62(8), 29–32.
gram.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1588, 120–129. Lorion, A., Harvey, M. J., and Chow, J. C. Y. (2014). “Redesign of curricula
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., and Froyd, J. E. (2014). “Systematic literature in transit systems planning to meet data-driven challenges.” J. Prof.
reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000223,
fields.” J. Eng. Educ., 103(1), 45–76. 05014007.
Chow, J. Y. J., Jayakrishnan, R., and Mahmassani, H. S. (2013). “Is trans- Manning, P. A. (2000). “Transportation education.” Transportation Re-
port modeling education too multidisciplinary? A manifesto on the search Board, Washington, DC.

© ASCE 04016003-9 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003

 Mason, J. M., and Lostival, L. M. (1993). “Transportation engineering Thomas, G. B. (2006). “Educational expectations of transportation engi-
careers: Awareness, retention, and curriculum.” Proc., ITE Annual neering employers.” Proc., ITE Annual Meeting, Institute of Transpor-
Meeting, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, tation Engineers (ITE), Washington, DC.
DC. Thomson Reuters. (2015). “Journal citation reports ®.” New York.
Melin, N., Hallon, R., and Hanus, J. (2010). “Development of an intro- Tooley, M. S. (1996). “A student’s perspective on transportation education
duction to transportation engineering course using experience based and curriculum.” Proc., ITE Annual Meeting, Institute of Transportation
learning to bring Afghanistan into the classroom.” Proc., ASEE Engineers (ITE), Washington, DC.
Annual Conf., American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), TRB (Transportation Research Board). (2003). “The workforce challenge:
Washington, DC. Recruiting, training, and retaining qualified workers for transportation
NAE (National Academy of Engineering). (2004). “The engineer of 2020: and transit agencies.” Washington, DC.
Visions of engineering in the new century.” Washington, DC. Turner, D. J., Campbell, B. S., and Turner, D. S. (1992). “History of
NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying). engineering education: How we got here.” Proc., ITE Annual Meeting,
(2014). “Engineering education initiative.” 〈http://ncees.org/about-ncees/ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, DC.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

engineering-education-initiative/〉 (Jul. 13, 2014). Turochy, R. E. (2006). “Determining the content of the first course in trans-
Perkins, S. A. (2009). “A comparative analysis of civil engineering program portation engineering.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 10.1061/
standards in Canada, the United States and Europe.” Inst. Transp. Eng. (ASCE)1052-3928(2006)132:3(200), 200–203.
J., 79(5), 44–45. Turochy, R. E., et al. (2013). “Assessment of introductory transportation
Prado da Silva, C., Jr., Fontenele, H. B., and Rodrigues da Silva, A (2014). engineering course and general transportation engineering curriculum.”
“Transportation engineering education for undergraduate students: Transp. Res. Rec., 2328, 9–15.
Competencies, skills, teaching-learning, and evaluation.” J. Prof. Issues Turochy, R. E. (2013). “Structuring the content of the first course in trans-
Eng. Educ. Pract., 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000220, 05014006. portation engineering: Perspectives of engineers and educators.” J. Prof.
Retzko, H. G. (1970). “Traffic engineering education in the Federal Repub- Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000149,
lic of Germany.” Inst. Transp. Eng. J., 40, 50–51. 206–210.
Russell, J. S., and Stouffer, W. B. (2005). “Survey of the National Civil Waidley, G., and Bittner, J. (2008). “An interdisciplinary approach to trans-
Engineering curriculum.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 10.1061/ portation education.” Proc., ASEE Annual Conf., American Society for
(ASCE)1052-3928(2005)131:2(118), 118–128. Engineering Education (ASEE), Washington, DC.
Sanford Bernhardt, K. L., et al. (2010). “Development of core concepts and Young, R., et al. (2011). “A nationwide effort to improve transportation
learning outcomes for the introductory transportation course.” Proc., engineering education.” Proc., ASEE Annual Conf., American Society
ASEE Annual Conf., American Society for Engineering Education for Engineering Education (ASEE), Washington, DC.
(ASEE), Washington, DC. Young, R., Sanford Bernhardt, K. L., and Nambisan, S. (2012). “Core
Sinha, K., et al. (2002). “Development of transportation engineering concepts and learning outcomes in an introductory transportation engi-
research, education, and practice in a changing civil engineering neering course: An evaluation of pilot implementations.” Proc., ASEE
world.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2002)128:4(301), Annual Conf., American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE),
301–313. Washington, DC.
Smadi, O., and Akili, W. (2006). “Intrastructure asset management educa- Zhou, J., and Schweitzer, L. (2009). “Transportation planning education
tion active learning and engagement-based practices.” Transp. Res. in the United States.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2109, 1–11.
Rec., 1957, 16–18. Zhou, J., and Soot, S. (2006). “Nationwide survey of transportation plan-
Sussman, J. M. (1995). “Educating the new transportation professional.” ning courses: Introduction, findings, and recommendations.” Transp.
Intelligent Transportation Society Quarterly, 89–99. Res. Rec., 1956, 175–183.

© ASCE 04016003-10 J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 04016003