Mapping The Future of Civil Engineering Education PDF

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 99.107.135.238 on 09/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Civil Engineering
Education Summit
Mapping the Future of
Civil Engineering Education
Kevin D. Hall, Ph.D., P.E.

Daniel G. Linzell, Ph.D., P.E.
Barbara S. Minsker, Ph.D.
Jerome F. Hajjar, Ph.D., P.E.
Camilla M. Saviz, Ph.D., P.E.
Published by American Society of Civil Engineers
1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191-4382
www.asce.org/bookstore | ascelibrary.org
Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference
made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an
endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information
only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase
specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation
or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or
utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no
liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used without first securing
competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing
such information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of
any patent or patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in US Patent and Trademark Office.
Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications
can be requested by sending an email to [email protected] or by locating a title in the ASCE Library
(http://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link.
Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483251.
Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 978-0-7844-8325-1 (PDF)
Manufactured in the United States of America.
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 1 2 3 4 5
Civil Engineering
Education Summit
Mapping the Future of
Civil Engineering Education
May 28-30, 2019 | Dallas, Texas
Sponsored by the Committee on Education
Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas

www.smu.edu
Summit Program Committee Co-Chairs:

Kevin Hall, University of Arkansas
Daniel Linzell, University of Nebraska
Summit Organization Committee Chair:

Barbara Minsker, Southern Methodist University
ASCE Committee on Education Chair:

Camilla M. Saviz, University of the Pacific
ASCE Department Heads Coordinating Council Chair:

Jerome F. Hajjar, Northeastern University
Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Executive Summary
Introduction
Speakers
Connecting the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Panel Discussions
Curriculum Development
Conceiving the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Mini TED Talks
PechaKuchas
Constructing the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Moving from Vision to Action 1 and 2
Discussion
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Acknowledgments
Sponsors
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appendix A
Appendix B
Executive Summary
I
t has long been recognized that engineering education transform the civil engineering educational experience
should mirror the profession itself – as a dynamic, ever- to prepare students for the future. The theme for the
evolving field. Indeed, in its 1955 Report on Evaluation Summit was “Empowered to Innovate,” emphasizing the
of Engineering Education, a panel sponsored by the goal to provide civil engineering educators with ideas,
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) examples, and encouragement to undertake the curricular
stated: innovation and other changes needed to meet the needs
of our rapidly evolving profession, and highlighting the
“Engineering is far from static, for it is importance of promoting a culture of innovation within
essentially a creative profession.” the civil engineering field.
During the first part of the Summit, participants
This sentiment is echoed in the Summary Report of heard from a series of experts, including ASCE President-
the 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference (ASCE): Elect K. N. Gunalan, about the current state of the civil
engineering profession (“Connecting the Future”). The
“…civil engineering education should be second part, “Conceiving the Future,” featured vision
continually evolving to higher levels of presentations from innovators who are pushing the
quality and at all times incorporating frontiers of the profession, including Chris Luebkeman
new technologies and practices into the of Arup Foresight and Jerry Buckwalter of Northrop
civil engineering education process.” Grumman. These speakers set the stage for the
participants to generate “opportunity statements” and
In keeping with these statements, the engineering “Big Ideas” for the profession to pursue change. Finally,
profession has witnessed an acceleration of the breadth, participants discussed these draft Summit outputs and
depth, and magnitude of change – not only to the rank ordered the opportunity statements during the third
complexity of challenges engineers must address but also session (“Constructing the Future”).
to the tools available to address those challenges and to
the people who will address them. This accelerating pace
of change necessitates revisiting our basic understanding
Summit Findings
of civil engineering education currently, and through the
middle of the 21st century.
Over 200 civil engineering educators, practitioners, Opportunity Statements
and guests convened at the Civil Engineering Education Defining civil engineering as a people-focused profession,
Summit in Dallas, Texas, in May 2019 to consider the participants linked people/stakeholder groups with
future—our future populations, engineering challenges actions addressing future needs. This exercise fostered
presented by those populations, and opportunities and the creation of “Opportunity Statements,” in the form of
challenges related to preparing civil engineers to address “(People/Group) need to (need) so that (result).”
and meet those challenges. Participants at the 2019 Civil One example is: “Students need to learn systems
Engineering Education Summit considered visions of thinking so that they are prepared for current and future
the future, examined current efforts by the profession societal challenges.”
and across universities to advance education in the Summit participants generated a total of 186 Oppor-
context of those visions, and identified opportunities to tunity Statements. These statements were then grouped
Summary 1
by the identified people, the need(s), and the opportunity/ that define a particular engineering discipline. Summit
result. The groupings allowed for the identification of participants dared to ask the question, “In the context
common themes. The Summit Program Committee used of the mid-21st century, what is a civil engineer?” Two
these themes to identify a list of the “top 20” statements elements related to this most fundamental question
to move forward for possible action. As a final step reflect the impact of technological advancement and
in this development process, Summit participants the evolving role of the civil engineer in society.
"ranked" the "top 20" Opportunity Statements by ASCE’s The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025
priority and brainstormed “Big Ideas” for implementing (published in 2006) anticipates the evolutionary, holistic
each statement. Although the participants prioritized nature of the role of civil engineers:
opportunities for action, the full collection of Opportunity
Statements developed at the Summit represents a “In 2025, civil engineers will serve as
rich database of ideas worthy of consideration by the master builders, environmental stewards,
profession and individual educational programs. innovators and integrators, managers
of risk and uncertainty, and leaders in
The Future of Civil Engineering Education shaping public policy.”
The Summit proposed a vision of civil engineering,
defined at its most basic level: An undergraduate civil engineering program is not
sufficient to fully prepare a graduate to be a master
Civil Engineering is a global, holistic builder, steward, innovator, manager, and leader. This is
profession that serves the needs of all recognized in the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge,
people. 3rd Edition (CEBOK3), which calls for a combination
of formal education, structured mentoring, and self-
In the future-oriented focus of the Summit, it was directed learning to position the civil engineer for career
agreed that the needs of people, and the contexts success. However, an undergraduate civil engineering
related to meeting those needs, are becoming curriculum provides the foundation on which to build
increasingly complex in our ever-evolving world. Thus, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the future civil
our educational systems, which prepare future engineers, engineer.
must also evolve to address this complexity. It is clear that the already rapid pace of technological
Three primary goals emerged from synthesizing the change and advancement will continue unabated – and
opportunity statements. The field of civil engineering very possibly accelerate. In his plenary remarks, Arup
needs to: Foresight engineer/futurist Chris Luebkeman observed
1. Be a Profession that serves people; the megatrend "if it can be automated, it will be auto-
mated …” New tools and new computational and analysis
2. Have a Culture that includes people; and
techniques are being introduced into the profession at a
3. Provide an Education that prepares people. rate beyond that to which most engineering education
programs can react and adapt. Although this issue is not
Four major objectives emerged from the discussions necessarily new, Summit participants struggled with the
and workshop activities as initial pathways toward disparity between the current and anticipated pace of
achieving these goals: innovation in the profession versus that in education.
Therefore, a major topic that emerged from the
Summit is the need to expand the domain of civil
OBJECTIVE 1: engineering to address technological advancement.
Reexamine, and potentially redefine, the domain Two other topics related to this theme also received
of Civil Engineering. significant attention by Summit participants, resulting in
A clear consensus among Summit participants is that the following major recommendations:
the world is becoming increasingly complex – thus, the
challenges faced by engineers are becoming increasingly 1. Learning new competencies related to emerging
complex. One aspect of this complexity relates to the technologies that are rapidly changing civil
interconnected nature of infrastructure, environmental, engineering (e.g., data science, robotics,
political, and social systems. Such interconnectedness is sensors, drones, and virtual reality), as well as
a major driver of the dissolution of traditional "boundaries" the knowledge and skills needed to use those
technologies.
Summary 2
2. Integrating more systems thinking into civil 2. “A continuing, concentrated effort to strengthen
engineering education to support global and integrate work from the humanistic and
stewardship, emphasize the importance social sciences into engineering programs”
of increased stakeholder engagement, and
evaluate the potential for unintended The Summary Report of the 1995 Civil Engineering
consequences. Systems thinking skills can Education Conference contained numerous recommen-
be enhanced through experiences such as dations related to professional skills; for example:
real-world problem solving, project-based
education, and high-impact experiences like 1. “Emphasize the need for sensitivity to culturally
internships, service learning, study abroad,
diverse groups”
student organizations, and competitions.
2. “Encourage students to convey the importance
3. Promoting a culture of innovation within the of engineering works to non-engineering
profession through more directed teaching students on campus”
of creative processes, entrepreneurship, and
evaluation of risk as an integral part of curricula 3. “Recognize communication skills, leadership
and mentored practice. skills, management, and teamwork by creating
awards for students”
These Summit discussions give rise to a major 4. “Provide learning from non-verbal communication
implication for 21st-century civil engineering education: and listening skills”
curricular flexibility. Indeed, “flexibility” emerged as 5. “Provide industry speakers to emphasize the
another primary theme among Opportunity Statements importance of communication skills, leadership,
related to civil engineering curricula, with five (5) of management, and teamwork”
the “top 20” Opportunity Statements addressing the
issue. Summit participants called for civil engineering The CEBOK3, published in 2019, also recognizes this
departments to define for themselves a program of need. It includes six outcomes related to professional
study to meet the needs of their stakeholders within very skills: communication, teamwork and leadership,
broad overarching guidelines. Such flexibility enables lifelong learning, professional attitudes, professional
a more rapid response to technological changes in the responsibilities, and ethical responsibilities.
profession; an integration of instruction addressing future Multiple generations of educators and practitioners
roles of civil engineers; and an elevation of professional (1955, 1995, 2019) have thus recognized the necessity for
skills as a requirement of civil engineering education. professional skills in the successful civil engineer. It is
These benefits must be balanced by a recognition of the curious, however, that these multiple generations were
benefit of having some degree of uniformity in education all moved to emphasize the need for increasing the level
across the profession. of professional skills in graduates – suggesting that the
profession continues to lag in the development of these
skills in our students.
OBJECTIVE 2: Summit participants placed significant emphasis on
Elevate professional skills to a truly equal footing this topic; of the 20 prioritized Opportunity Statements,
with technical skills. seven (7) address professional skills and abilities. Moving
Certainly, the need for strong professional skills has long forward, topics related to professional skills should be
been recognized by both civil engineering educators and elevated in importance within curricula – to be thought
practitioners. of not as "desirable," but "required," on an equal basis with
The ASEE “Grinter Report” (1955) included two the various technical/design skills currently emphasized
outcomes related to this concept: in undergraduate programs.
1. “An insistence upon the development of a high

level of performance in the oral, written, and
graphical communication of ideas”
Summary 3
OBJECTIVE 3: • Ongoing commitment of the civil engineering
Develop a diverse, inclusive, equitable, and community – educators and practitioners – to
engaging culture within the civil engineering collaborate on developing, implementing, and
profession. monitoring actions arising from the Summit
Summit participants engaged in significant discussion recommendations.
regarding “professional culture” and related topics in the • A regular schedule of events to advance civil
context of civil engineering. Although it may be tempting engineering education.
to place these topics and discussions within the realm
• Support of academia and the profession,
of professional skills and attitudes, this subject rose to
including ASCE, to dedicate resources to the
represent a major theme of the event. At least four (4) of

the “top 20” prioritized Opportunity Statements address priorities identified at the Summit.
the concept of civil engineering culture. Participants
explored the distinct yet interconnected nature of Summit participants recognized that change in
diversity, inclusion, and equity; the need to engage civil engineering education will require dedication to a
students at all levels; and the concept of permeating the shared vision and a collective willingness to work for it.
student educational experience with these concepts. As presented in summary remarks at the conclusion of
Summit participants suggested that the following the Summit, advancement of civil engineering education
elements need to be addressed by the entire profession, will require three elements to TAP the innovation
within both the education and practitioner communities: opportunities identified by participants:
• Dedicated and intentional instruction and training • Tenacity to ensure that needed change occurs;
related to diversity, inclusion, and equity; • Audacity to propose bold actions and tactics to
• Increasing representation within the profession fully realize necessary change; and
– including student bodies, faculty ranks, and • Practicality to understand that necessary change
practitioners (at all levels); can and must occur over different time scales.
• Modeling inclusivity and equity in the classroom
and in the workplace; and Collectively, the vision proposed by the Summit
• Engaging students at all levels (K-12, college/ participants is bold and far-reaching. The Opportunity
Statements identify both near-term and long-term action
university), to demonstrate the value of a civil
areas that will position the civil engineering profession for
engineering degree.
continued advancement and leadership through the mid-
21st century. As such, the findings of the Summit provide
vital input to future initiatives such as revisions to the Civil
OBJECTIVE 4: Engineering Body of Knowledge, 3rd Edition (CEBOK3),
Implement a regular schedule of national/ future formulations of the ABET Civil Engineering Program
international civil engineering education events, Criteria (CEPC), ASCE’s Future World Vision, and civil
and dedicate resources to address findings. engineering curricula.
Planners of the 2019 Civil Engineering Education Summit
consulted a significant body of literature to explore
topics and themes arising from previous assessments of
engineering education. As noted earlier in this summary,
there have been remarkable similarities in topical areas
and themes arising from these efforts. Issues identified in
the 1955 ASEE report continued to be identified 40 years
later at the 1995 ASCE Conference.
Summit participants agreed that the 2019 Civil
Engineering Education Summit was highly worthwhile,
and expressed both hope and confidence that real
and significant change could result from the work
accomplished during the Summit. Change will require:
Summary 4
Introduction
I
n May 2019, participants at the American Society of in the context of those visions, and identify opportunities
Civil Engineers (ASCE) Engineering Education Summit to transform the civil engineering educational experience
considered the future – our future populations, to prepare students for the future. The theme for the
engineering challenges presented by those populations, Summit was “Empowered to Innovate,” emphasizing the
and opportunities and challenges related to preparing goal to provide civil engineering educators with ideas,
civil engineers to address and meet those challenges. examples, and encouragement to undertake the curricular
It has long been recognized that engineering education innovation and other changes needed to meet the needs
should mirror the profession itself – as a dynamic, ever- of our rapidly evolving profession, and highlighting the
evolving field. Indeed, in its 1955 Report on Evaluation importance of promoting a culture of innovation within
of Engineering Education, a panel sponsored by the the civil engineering field. This event was the first ASCE
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) gathering focused on the future of CE education since
stated: the 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference (CEEC
’95) [ASCE (1995)].
“Engineering is far from static, for it is During the first session of the Summit, participants
essentially a creative profession.” heard from a series of experts about the current state of
the civil engineering profession (“Connecting the Future”).
This sentiment is echoed in the Summary Report of The second session, “Conceiving the Future,” featured
the 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference (ASCE): vision presentations from innovators who are pushing the
frontiers of the profession. These speakers set the stage
“…civil engineering education should be for the highly participatory “Moving Vision to Action”
continually evolving to higher levels of engagement, led by a team from SMU’s Lyle School of
quality and at all times incorporating Engineering Design and Innovation Program, in which
new technologies and practices into the participants developed 156 “opportunity statements”
civil engineering education process.” and “Big Ideas” for the profession to pursue change.
The Summit Program Committee then synthesized
In keeping with these statements, the engineering these ideas into “top 20” opportunity statements and
profession has witnessed an acceleration of the breadth, four objectives for the future of CE education. Finally,
depth, and magnitude of change – not only to the participants discussed these draft Summit outputs and
complexity of challenges engineers must address but also rank ordered the opportunity statements during the third
to the tools available to address those challenges and to session (“Constructing the Future”).
the people who will address them. This accelerating pace More details on the process and outcomes of these
of change necessitates revisiting our basic understanding three sessions are given below, followed by conclusions,
of civil engineering education currently, and through the acknowledgments, and a sponsor list. Finally, Appendix
middle of the 21st century. A lists all 156 opportunity statements generated during
To this end, over 200 civil engineering educators, the Summit and Appendix B provides a bibliography of
practitioners, and guests convened at Southern Methodist references that the program committee and participants
University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, in May 2019 to consider consulted as background for their work.
visions of the future, examine current efforts by the
profession and across universities to advance education
Summary 5
Speakers
Caroline Benett | University of Kansas
Dr. Caroline Bennett is a Professor in Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the
University of Kansas (KU). She is the Lead for the School of Engineering’s Engaged Learning Initiative,
and previously served as a Faculty Fellow with the KU Center for Teaching Excellence. Caroline works
in multiple leadership roles at KU focused on bringing about change in higher educational practices,
including co-leading the NSF-funded TRESTLE network. Caroline joined KU faculty in 2006 after earning
her doctorate from the University of Cincinnati. She is a licensed Professional Engineer in Kansas.
Jerry Buckwalter | ASCE

Gerald (Jerry) Buckwalter is the chief operating and strategy officer responsible for helping to shape
the strategic direction and operational effectiveness of ASCE. Additionally, he oversees the Future
World Vision initiative and several areas of internal operations. With over 35 years of experience as a
process-minded leader, he came to ASCE from Northrop Grumman, where he most recently served as
Director of Corporate Strategy. Jerry earned a bachelor’s degree in physics from Monmouth University
and completed advanced coursework in technology systems at The George Washington University
and in international business management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sarah Christian | Carnegie Mellon University

Sarah Christian is an Assistant Teaching Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. She earned her B.S. in Civil Engineering at Carnegie Mellon
University, MCE at Johns Hopkins University, and Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering with a
focus on Structural Engineering and Materials at Stanford University in 2009. Sarah has practiced as a
structural engineer and building envelope engineer in Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh. She teaches
courses on Engineering Design, Materials, Structural Engineering, and Soil Mechanics. Sarah’s interests
include interactive and student-centered learning, design education, and curricula of the future.
David A. Dzombak | Carnegie Mellon University

David Dzombak is the Hamerschlag University Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. The emphasis of his research and teaching
is on water quality engineering, water resource sustainability, and energy-environment issues. He
has served on ASCE’s Department Heads Coordinating Council since 2018. He received his Ph.D. in
Civil Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and holds a B.S. and M.S. in Civil
Engineering from Carnegie Mellon. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Pennsylvania, a Board-
Certified Environmental Engineer, a Diplomate Water Resources Engineer, and a member of the National
Academy of Engineering.
Clifton Farnsworth | Brigham Young University

Clifton B. Farnsworth is an Associate Professor in the Construction and Facilities Management Program
at Brigham Young University. He graduated with B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from
Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Utah. He is a licensed
Professional Engineer in Utah. Prior to his academic appointment, he worked as a civil engineer for
the Utah Department of Transportation in geotechnical and construction-related roles. His research
interests include heavy civil and infrastructure construction, disaster reconstruction, and construction
and engineering education.
Summary 6
Tiago Forin | Rowan University
Tiago Forin is an instructor at Rowan University, responsible for teaching Engineering Clinic courses. As
the Project Coordinator for RevED (Revolutionizing Engineering Diversity), Tiago is the point of contact
for Rowan University within the cohort of participating institutions. RevED focuses on increasing
representation in engineering across visible and non-visible elements of diversity. This five-year
longitudinal project uses qualitative research methods to collect data regarding diversity in Rowan’s
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. That data is analyzed and reported on in order to
engage university administrators and faculty to influence change in admissions criteria and curricular
design.
Ken Fridley | University of Alabama

Dr. Ken Fridley joined The University of Alabama in 2003 as professor and head of the department
of civil, construction, and environmental engineering and became the senior associate dean in the
College of Engineering in 2015. He has also served as the founding director of the University’s Center
for Sustainable Infrastructure. Fridley earned his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Washington
State University, master’s in architectural engineering from the University of Texas, and doctorate in
civil engineering from Auburn University. Prior to joining The University of Alabama, Fridley served on
the faculty at several other national flagship universities. He has extensive experience in the area of
structural wood engineering, including load-duration behavior (creep-rupture) of wood and wood-
based materials, structural connections, and response and protection of wood-frame buildings to
natural hazards, including wind and seismic actions.
K. N. Gunalan | ASCE 2019 President-Elect

K. N. Gunalan (Guna) is the senior vice president, transportation, alternative delivery, Americas
at AECOM, based in Salt Lake City, UT. Guna has managed large complex infrastructure projects,
providing technical advice on civil, structural, geotechnical, pavement, and materials issues on a variety
of projects around the world. His collaborative approach has contributed to many successful programs
and projects ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than 3 billion dollars. Guna has been active
in ASCE for many years, including leadership roles as Region 8 director (2009-2012), Region 8 governor
(2005-2007), Utah Section president (2002-2003), and Texas Section High Plains Branch president
(1992). Most recently, he served as a governor for the Geo-Institute and was a member of the steering
committee for the 2017 ASCE India Conference.
Kevin Hall | University of Arkansas

Dr. Kevin D. Hall is the Hicks Endowed Professor of Infrastructure Engineering at the University
of Arkansas, where he has served on the faculty for 27 years, including 11 years as the Head of the
Department of Civil Engineering. Hall is very active in the Civil Engineering education community,
having served on the ASCE Committee on Education, as the Chair of the Civil Engineering Division
of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), and as the Chair of the ASCE Department
Heads Coordinating Council (DHCC). His research and teaching interests include pavement materials,
design, construction, and rehabilitation, as well as professional practice issues. He is a member of ASCE
and is a licensed Professional Engineer in Arkansas.
Marc Hoit | North Carolina State University

In 2008 Marc Hoit became NC State’s first vice-chancellor for information technology and Chief
Information Officer. Dr. Hoit is a professor of Civil Engineering. Prior to NC State he was at the University
of Florida. Hoit was the co-principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security grant to
develop an early warning system for health-security. He was also the Principal Investigator for DIGGS, an
international-XML standard for transferring transportation information. He is a Fellow of the American
Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. He earned his B.S. from Purdue and
his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.
Summary 7
Keith B. Jackson | HNTB
Keith B. Jackson, P.E., has more than 38 years of civil engineering and project management experience
as a top consultant to state departments of transportation in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Keith is
a Senior Vice President with HNTB and is responsible for growth of the firm’s business across Texas.
Prior to joining HNTB, Keith served as a vice president of transportation and infrastructure for another
consulting firm, building and managing a staff of 30 people that led to an increase of $32 million in
sales over a five-year period. Jackson has a wide range of engineering experience with municipal
and educational projects including due diligence, major utilities construction, site permitting
and entitlements.
Daniel Linzell | University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Daniel Linzell was appointed Associate Dean for Graduate and International Programs at the University
Nebraska Lincoln (UNL) College of Engineering (COE) in October 2018. Previously, he served as Chair of
the Department of Civil Engineering (CIVE) from August 2013 to September 2018 and concurrently held
the Donald R. Voelte, Jr. and Nancy A. Keegan Professorship in Engineering in November of 2013. Prior to
joining UNL, he was an Assistant, Associate and the inaugural John A. and Harriette K. Shaw Professor of
Civil Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University (PSU). Daniel received his M.S. and Ph.D. from the
Georgia Institute of Technology. He received his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the Ohio
State University in 1990. Daniel is a Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Chris Luebkeman | ARUP Foresight

Arup Fellow and Director of Global Foresight + Research + Innovation, Dr. Chris Luebkeman works with
some of the world’s leading companies to develop a better understanding of the opportunities created
by change in our built environment. Since joining Arup in 1999, Chris has initiated research projects on
the designer’s desktop of the future. He is an active participant and speaker in Summits ranging from
those of the Design Futures Council to the World Economic Forum. Chris’s engaging, interactive talks
foster the thoughts on which forces drive change and how we can co-build our future city.
Jerome P. Lynch | University of Michigan

Prof. Jerome Lynch, Ph.D., is the Donald Malloure Department Chair of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Michigan. He is also Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
and Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. Lynch received his M.S. degrees in Civil
and Environmental Engineering and in Electrical Engineering and his Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental
Engineering from Stanford University. He received his B.E. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from
the Cooper Union in New York City. Lynch has been awarded the 2005 Office of Naval Research Young
Investigator Award, the 2012 ASCE EMI Leonardo da Vinci Award, and the 2014 ASCE Walter L. Huber
Civil Engineering Research Prize.
Barbara E. Minsker | Southern Methodist University

Barbara E. Minsker, Ph.D., P.E., is the Bobby B. Lyle Endowed Professor of Leadership and Global
Entrepreneurship at Southern Methodist University. She serves as Chair of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering and Senior Fellow in the Hunt Institute for Engineering and Humanity. Dr.
Minsker’s research area is environmental informatics and systems analysis. Prior to joining SMU in 2016,
Minsker was Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of
Illinois Urbana-Champaign. She earned a B.S. in Operations Research and Industrial Engineering with
Distinction and a Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University.
Summary 8
Audra Morse | Michigan Technological University
Dr. Audra Morse, P.E., BCEE, F.ASCE, ENV SP, is Professor and Chair of the Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department at Michigan Technological University. Her research focuses on wastewater
reuse and engineering education. Prior to Michigan Tech, Dr. Morse was a professor in the Department
of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering at Texas Tech University, where she served as
Associate Dean. She received the two highest teaching honors and the President’s Excellence in Gender
Equity Award. She is an ABET EAC Commissioner, Chair of the ASCE Committee on Accreditation
Committee, and a Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge, 3rd Edition, committee member.
Rebekah Oulton | California Polytechnic

University, San Luis Obispo
Rebekah Oulton, Ph.D., PE, LEED AP, ENV SP is an Associate Professor at California Polytechnic University,
San Luis Obispo, in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. Prior to Cal Poly, she worked
as a professional engineer and project manager for a civil engineering consulting firm. Her technical
research addresses advanced treatment methods to target emerging contaminants during water and
wastewater treatment, and optimization of green infrastructure for stormwater management and
pollutant control. She teaches water resources engineering, water treatment and reuse, and sustainable
practices in civil and environmental design.
Yvette E. Pearson | Rice University

Dr. Yvette E. Pearson is Associate Dean for Accreditation, Assessment, and Strategic Initiatives in the
George R. Brown School of Engineering at Rice University and Founder of The Pearson Evaluation and
Education Research Group. An ASCE Fellow, she has been recognized for more than two decades of
contributions to engineering education and research. Among her numerous awards and honors are
ABET’s Claire L. Felbinger Award for Diversity and Inclusion and ASCE’s Professional Practice Ethics
and Leadership Award for her achievements toward diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering. Dr.
Pearson is the Inaugural Chair of Members of Society Advancing an Inclusive Culture (MOSAIC), ASCE’s
Board-level advisory council on diversity, equity, and inclusion. She is a registered Professional Engineer,
has served seven years as a Program Evaluator for the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission
(EAC), and will join the EAC as a Commissioner in July 2020.
Mike Penn | University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Mike Penn is a professor of environmental and civil engineering at the University of Wisconsin-
Platteville. He earned degrees from the University of Michigan (B.S., M.S.) and Michigan Technological
University (Ph.D.). He teaches undergraduate courses including: Introduction to Engineering Projects,
Introduction to Infrastructure, Environmental Engineering, Water Supply and Treatment, Wastewater
Engineering, Air and Waste Management, Land Development, and Wetlands. His research interests
include pedagogy, surface water quality, and waste management. He is involved with providing water
management assistance to rural regions in developing nations through the Global Water Stewardship.
He is the lead author of Introduction to Infrastructure: An Introduction to Civil and Environmental
Engineering, published by Wiley. He is a licensed engineer in Wisconsin.
Angel “Ari” Perez | Quinnipiac University

Ari Perez-Mejia earned his undergraduate degree in civil engineering at the Universidad Tecnologica
Centroamericana (UNITEC) in Honduras and did his graduate work at the University of South Carolina.
He received his Ph.D. in 2014 and joined the engineering faculty at Quinnipiac University that same year.
His interests are in the conservation of archaeological sites, engineering education with a focus on civil
and geotechnical engineering, and the musical stylings of Taylor Swift.
Summary 9
Mary Roth | Lafayette College
Mary Roth is a Professor of Civil Engineering at Lafayette College. She received her degrees from
Lafayette College (B.S.), Cornell University (M.S.), and the University of Maine (Ph.D.). Her teaching
interests include foundation engineering, introduction to engineering, and courses designed to engage
students from the arts and humanities with engineering topics. Her research interests include risk
assessment for geotechnical structures, site investigation in karst, and the use of bacteria to modify the
properties of soils. She has over 70 publications and has served as principal or co-principal on nine NSF
grants. She is a licensed engineer in Maine and Pennsylvania.
John Schemmel | Texas State University

Dr. John Schemmel is the Bruce and Gloria Ingram Endowed Chair in Engineering and Civil Engineering
program Coordinator at Texas State University. Previously, John served as Director of the Concrete
Industry Management Program at Texas State, founder of eTEC LLC, and Professor at Valparaiso
University, South Dakota State University, and the University of Arkansas. Dr. Schemmel holds degrees
from the University of Wisconsin (BSCE), Lehigh University (M.S.), and North Carolina State University
(Ph.D.). He is a Fellow of ACI, recipient of ACI’s Certification Award, and is Secretary for and an Honorary
Member of ASTM Committee C09.
Lucio Soibelman | University of Southern California

Professor Soibelman obtained his bachelor and master’s degrees from UFRGS, Brazil. He worked as a
construction manager for 10 years before obtaining his Ph.D. in 1998 at MIT. He was a faculty in UIUC
and CMU before he joined USC as the Chair of the CEE department in 2012. During the last 25 years
he focused his research on advanced data acquisition, management, visualization, and mining for
construction and operations of advanced infrastructure systems. He has published over 150 books,
book chapters, journal papers, Summit articles, and reports and performed research with funding from
NSF, NASA, DOE, US Army, NIST, IBM, Bosch, IDOT, and RedZone Robotics among many others funding
agencies.
Brett Story | Southern Methodist University

Brett Story joined the SMU faculty in 2013 as a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the
Lyle School of Engineering. Professor Story is involved in numerous programs and initiatives, including
the Smart Infrastructure Innovation Initiative with Garland Independent School District. Dr. Story
encourages student involvement and leadership in his work.
Alison Wood | Olin College of Engineering

Dr. Alison Wood is an assistant professor of Environmental Engineering at Olin College of Engineering.
She is a distinguished researcher in the fields of both water and sanitation, as well as a researcher
and practitioner in using interdisciplinary thinking and approaches to solving environmental and
sustainability problems. Dr. Wood is also pursuing her interests in the areas of equity and justice
through education and engagement with context and values. She earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from
Rutgers University. Dr. Wood then went on to earn a Master of Science in Engineering in Environmental
and Water Resources Engineering and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from The University of Texas at Austin.
Summary 10
PLENARY 1
Chris Luebkeman
Arup Foresight
ENGAGEMENT 1
The Decades in Review
Dan Linzell University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Mary Roth, Lafayette College
Connecting
PANEL DISCUSSION
The State of the Profession
ASCE Perspective: K. N. Gunalan, President-Elect, ASCE
the Future
Industry Perspective: Keith Jackson, HNTB
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Yvette E. Pearson, Rice University
ENGAGEMENT 2
CE Curriculum Development
David Dzombak, Carnegie Mellon University
BOK / ABET CEPC ABET Calendar
Ken Fridley, University of Alabama
Quick Look: The BOK3
Audra Morse, Michigan Technological School
T
he “Connecting the Future” session outlined the Next, Dr. Hall delivered the Summit charge:
Summit objectives and provided perspectives on
the history of CE education, current state of the CE Generating ideas, examples, and
profession, and emerging future trends. A brief summary enthusiasm to spur the innovation
of the speakers’ recommendations is given below, but the needed in the CE profession for our
reader is strongly encouraged to read the full summaries rapidly evolving world.
in the following sub-sections.
Summit Program Committee Co-Chair Kevin Hall, Dan Linzell and Mary Roth, Co-Chair and Member
Summit Organization Committee Chair Barbara Minsker, of the Summit Program Committee, respectively, then
and SMU Provost Steven Currall opened the session with gave historical perspectives on CE education. Drs. Linzell
brief welcome statements. Chris Luebkeman, Foresight, and Roth reviewed the history of CE curricula, changes
Research, and Innovation Leader at Arup Foresight, then made to reflect technology improvements, and previous
gave a keynote about several emerging trends, including: reports and activities relevant to CE education.
the rapid pace of world change and the difficulties of After a networking break, a panel discussion on the
predicting unintended consequences; the need for state of the CE profession featured ASCE President-
global stewardship; increasing automation; expanded Elect K. N. Gunalan, Keith Jackson (then Vice Chair
stakeholder participation through social computing; new of the American Council on Engineering Companies),
design criteria and the lack of uniform design solutions; and Yvette E. Pearson (Chair of ASCE’s Members of
decaying infrastructure condition; and the importance Society Advancing Inclusion Council). The panel’s key
of critical thinking and reflection, communication and observations included the:
leadership skills, and systems analysis to address these
challenges.
Connecting the Future 11

• Need for emerging technologies and innovative is essential to advancing the field. Ken Fridley (Chair of
approaches to address society’s complex ASCE’s Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge 3 [BOK3]
challenges, including sustainable infrastructure in Task Committee) provided an overview of the recently
a global environment; released BOK3. He said that universities and industry
must partner on educational changes and educators must
• Importance of conveying the relevance of civil
initiate that process. He also stressed that the BOK and
engineering to these challenges;
accreditation criteria are not solely focused on licensure,
• Necessity of diverse perspectives, fostered by as not all CEs pursue licensing as a professional engineer
inclusive organizational and educational cultures; (PE).
and Next, Audra Morse (Chair of the ASCE Committee
• Increasing significance of oral communication on Accreditation Operations and an ABET Engineering

skills. Accreditation Commissioner) provided a more detailed
overview of the BOK3. She emphasized that BOK3
added achievements in the affective (emotional)
Finally, David Dzombak, member of the Summit
domain and broadened specialty education beyond
Program Committee, led the last “Connecting the
formal undergraduate programs to graduate programs,
Future” session that was focused on CE curriculum
mentoring experiences, and self-development beyond
development. Dr. Dzombak made an opening statement
formal education.
asserting that innovation is possible within the current
accreditation framework and that curricular flexibility

PLENARY 1
Chris Luebkeman
Arup Foresight
D
r. Chris Luebkeman, Foresight, Research and 1. Critical Thinking - he will hire a critical thinker
Innovation Leader for Arup, kicked off the event over a booksmart candidate;
with a thoughtful discussion on what is driving 2. Communication - idea does not matter unless it
change around the world and how those drivers relate can be explained;
to the topics raised at the Civil Engineering Education
Summit. He questioned whether society is learning 3. Regenerative Design - need to focus on restoring
as fast as the world is changing and, if not, postulated what was unintentionally destroyed;
that byproducts caused by a gap between change and 4. Expanded Optimization Criteria - focus on
knowledge should be deeply thought about and tracked optimizing tools to reduce impact, such as
in some way. carbon emissions;
5. Design Strategies - consider solution sets or
Luebkeman presented items of interest to attendees families as no single solution or practice exists;
that he’s learned as a thought- and innovation-leader in
the engineering and architecture profession: 6. Infrastructure Oncology - need to restore
1. Change is constant; understanding its context is infrastructure to restore society;
critical. 7. Systems Interaction - teach and understand
2. The future is always oversold and under- how our systems interact with others;
imagined. We must understand people and what 8. Digital Transformation - the “buy/build it now”
they need from a temporal perspective. button for construction projects will be available
3. Everything that is inconvenient will change and in a few years;
anything that can be automated will be. Humans 9. Relevance - know how to maintain in a time of
innovate to eliminate and 70-75 percent of profound change; and
what is currently taught and done will become
10. Leadership - must make responsible decisions
automated.
at every level.
4. Participation is what shapes today’s world.
He continued by stating that, even in our technology-
In his role at Arup, Luebkeman strives to maintain centered society where systems are being decentralized,
a culture of innovation. His group identifies and tracks augmentation is affecting more aspects of everyday
disruptive technologies at the global, regional, national, life, and tasks are expected to be completed quickly,
and local levels, and determines if they are systemic, moments of “slowness” foster creativity. An engineer
elemental, or fundamental. They focus on understanding who couples creative thinking with augmented reality,
higher order impacts of these technologies and he feels scripting, and leadership skills and also recognizes the
that educators should also be tracking these disruptive importance of global stewardship will be able to adapt to
technologies. change and use their knowledge to innovate and produce
Luebkeman presented 10 things he was thinking results. These qualities will define future professionals.
about:

ENGAGEMENT 1
The Decades in Review

Dan Linzell, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Mary Roth, Lafayette College
D
r. Daniel Linzell, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, context; (b) student exposure to an additional
and Dr. Mary Roth, Lafayette College, provided area of science, as well as management, business,
historical perspective, briefly touching on the public policy, and leadership concepts; (c)
history of civil and environmental curricula, using their application of probability and statistics to
own schools as case studies, and on ASCE conferences address uncertainty; and (d) including principles
and activities focused on higher education. of sustainability in design.
Roth compared Lafayette College course catalogs 2. ASCE’s Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge,
from 1873 and 1980 to speak to a reduced focus on Editions 1-3: These works demonstrate the
the humanities and social sciences. Linzell compared continuous evolution of topics that should be
University of Nebraska-Lincoln curricula in 1980 and taught in civil engineering, how they should
2019, noting inclusion of profession-focused freshman be categorized, and expected student levels
seminars and senior capstone courses. He also highlighted of attainment. In addition, the CEBOK has
additional, albeit limited, changes reflecting technology a continuing emphasis on understanding
improvements and that additional requirements of business, policy, and leadership principles,
curricula may result in a loss of flexibility. and more recently focuses on professionalism,
Roth and Linzell provided excerpts from the 1995 ethics, sustainability, data analysis, and risk and
Conference report, including recommendations that uncertainty.
focused on faculty pedagogical training, industry
engagement, and project-based learning. These 3. NAEs Educating the Engineer of 2020: Showed
recommendations ultimately led to development of the the importance of producing engineers who
ExCEEd program, formation of industry advisory boards, are technically creative, agile, resilient, and
and emphasis on creating a senior capstone course. flexible to address societal challenges, and the
Other important engineering education activities by subsequent need to “reengineer” engineering
other groups between 1995 and 2019 highlighted non- education to address how students learn as well
technical skill goals and requirements, including: as what they learn.
4. ASCE's Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025: These
1. ABET 2000 Engineering Criteria, 2016 revisions reports illustrated the desire to have higher
to the Program Criteria for Civil Engineering, and education produce master builders who are: (a)
2019 revisions to ABET EAC Student Outcomes: mentored by practitioners, come from diverse
These collectively addressed the need for (a) demographics and disciplines, are able to work in
student understanding of engineering solutions in a distributed global setting, and vocally advocate
a global, economic, environmental, and societal for economic growth; (b) stewards of the

environment who focus on sustaining the natural
environment, consider resource consumption
impacts and cross-border environmental effects,
focus on social equity, and consider financial
impacts of environmental actions; (c) innovators
who facilitate multi-disciplinary research into
civil engineering issues; (d) managers of risk
who embed risk assessment and management
methodologies as core knowledge and skills;
and (e) leaders in public policy by utilizing
continuing education, mentoring, and work-

place opportunities to improve knowledge and
skills.
5. MIT's Global State of the Art in Engineering
Education: Emphasized the need for students
to be provided with a range of opportunities to
work across nationalities and cultures.

PANEL DISCUSSION
The State of the Profession

ASCE Perspective: K. N. Gunalan, President-Elect, ASCE
Industry Perspective: Keith Jackson, HNTB
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Yvette E. Pearson, Rice University
T
he first panel discussion focused on the state and, ultimately, what an engineer’s role in society will
of the profession featured K. N. Gunalan, ASCE be moving forward. Jackson stated that exponential
President-Elect, Keith Jackson, American Council change is occurring and as a result, it becomes difficult to
of Engineering Companies, and Dr. Yvette E. Pearson, identify what is happening next week. Given this context,
Rice University. Dr. Kevin Hall served as moderator of the when hiring new engineers Jackson wants individuals
session. who have a “sparkle in their eye,” exhibit fundamental
Gunalan stated that our society depends on civil levels of understanding of important concepts, and can
and environmental engineers as we are the stewards of use those skills in unique ways to “connect the dots” to
infrastructure and collectively have substantial impact solve problems using new and innovative approaches. He
on society. He stated that the profession must be trusted recognizes that dealing with rapid change is challenging
to provide frank solutions to technical problems that are for educators but ultimately feels that, if one topic could
presented with confidence to our elected and appointed be taught, it should be verbal communication —be it
officials. Gunalan emphasized the importance of with peers, unfamiliar individuals or groups, clients or
sustainable infrastructure in a global environment and the the general public—as it is an essential skill both now
need to develop a diverse group of future engineers who and in the future. Attracting the engineer of the future
can compete in the global environment. He indicated to our profession necessitates clearly conveying that
that ASCE is working to better prepare individuals civilization needs civil and environmental engineers to
for this environment via development of professional survive and thrive while also demonstrating that we solve
certifications and credentialing opportunities. Gunalan problems that require skills to “connect the dots.”
also provided an overview of ASCE activities focused Pearson spoke to the importance of diversity, equity,
on the future of the profession, including Dream Big, the and inclusion to the future of the profession. She stated
Future World Vision, and Engineer Tomorrow, and stated that optimal solutions to major problems need diverse
that their focus is to “help you matter more and enable perspectives and that, given changing demographics
you to make a bigger difference.” and increasing need for engineers, ensuring that the
Jackson spoke to the future of the profession from an field is diverse and inclusive is an imperative and is
industry perspective, sharing a recent competition where everyone’s job. Diversity goes beyond gender, age, race,
a firm asked engineering staff employed for less than and ethnicity, and should be an end goal, not just an initial
five years and under age 30 to design the building of the goal. To accomplish this, diversity and inclusion must
future. In the winning team’s process, the client provided be embedded in civil engineering curricula. Pearson
the desired specifications and Artificial Intelligence was stated that true diversity will occur via development
used to design, manufacture, and construct the building. of an inclusive and equitable culture involving open
Jackson wondered where engineers fit into this process communication and a climate conducive to success for

all. She indicated that equity is different from equality
in that equality focuses on treating everyone the same,
while equity focuses on treating everyone fairly. Pearson
reminded Summit attendees that: diversity and inclusion
is part of the ASCE Code of Ethics; engineering teams are
defined as diverse in the ABET Engineering Accreditation
Commission’s general criteria; and that reducing
inequalities is United Nation’s Sustainable Development
Goal 10. To ensure that we are teaching engineers to
engineer inclusively, educators can evaluate culture
and climate, practice inclusive teaching, be transparent,

require training, and identify and employ best practices
now.

ENGAGEMENT 2
CE Curriculum Development
David Dzombak, Carnegie Mellon University
Ken Fridley, University of Alabama
Audra Morse, Michigan Technological University
T
he first day concluded with a session on civil the Task Committee charged with its creation identified
and environmental engineering curricular essential foundational, fundamental, technical, and
development. Moderator Dr. David Dzombak, professional outcomes for future civil and environmental
Carnegie Mellon University, emphasized that civil and engineers. The Task Committee subsequently focused
environmental engineering educators should remember on appropriate levels of achievement for the specified
that they have the ability to innovate in the current outcomes. For some outcomes, levels of achievement
accreditation framework, and that curricular flexibility were specified in the affective as well as cognitive
is important to move pedagogical processes and, domains. Morse stated that civil engineering education
ultimately, the profession forward. included both formal undergraduate and post-graduate
Dr. Ken Fridley, University of Alabama and chair of the education along with mentored experience and self-
Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge 3 Task Committee, development. She also detailed the organization and
provided an overview of how the Civil Engineering Body progression toward achievement in the third edition
of Knowledge revision process related to the ABET of the CEBOK, and provided examples as to how that
Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) general progression could fit into curricula. She emphasized
criteria and the civil engineering program criteria, and three aspects related to the new Body of Knowledge:
ASCE’s process and calendar for development and the importance of mentorship; the addition of affective
revision of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge and domain levels of achievement for selected outcomes;
civil engineering program criteria. Fridley stated that and that individual civil and environmental engineers
adequate preparation of future civil and environmental ultimately must commit to their own self-development as
engineers is ultimately a partnership between academia an essential part of achieving the full body of knowledge.
and industry but that educators initiate the process. Morse ended by stating that (a) a formal undergraduate
Fridley also emphasized that we are a profession of curriculum can only teach so much, (b) mentoring and
practice, not one that emphasizes licensure. He expressed curiosity must be cultivated, and (3) innovation is a
concern that educators interpret the CEBOK, ABET EAC, professional responsibility.
and CEPC as being solely focused on licensure and
emphasized that those involved with the development
of these recognize that not every civil and environmental
engineer is on a path toward licensure.
Dr. Audra Morse, Michigan Technological University,
provided an overview of how the Civil Engineering Body
of Knowledge, Third Edition, is organized and how it
was developed, reviewed, and revised. She stated that

PLENARY 2
ASCE Future World Vision
Jerry Buckwalter, Northrop Grumman
Conceiving ENGAGEMENT 3
TABLETOP BREAKOUTS
the Future
Education Opportunities and Challenges
related to ASCE Future World Vision
MINI “TED” TALKS

Innovations and Innovators
PECHAKUCHAS
Curriculum Innovation
A
second plenary session on ASCE’s Future World to the total educational experience, and full integration
Vision kicked off “Conceiving the Future” on day 2 of classroom and out-of-classroom work would enhance
of the Summit. Tabletop breakouts to brainstorm student learning.
education opportunities and challenges related to the A PechaKucha session involved 10 institutions
Future World Vision followed. Two fast-paced sessions specifically describing how they are working to enhance
presented ideas and activities focused on civil and innovation in their programs, and ultimately foster
environmental engineering curricular innovation using innovative thinking by students in those programs. More
provocative and nontraditional methods. detailed recommendations from each speaker are given
“Mini TED Talk” leaders provided their perspectives in the sub-sections below.
on how extracurricular contributions, holistic approaches
Conceiving the Future 19

PLENARY 2
ASCE Future World Vision

Jerry Buckwalter, Northrop Grumman
D
ay two of the Summit began with Jerry Buckwalter, The planning exercise identified six trends that would
Northrop Grumman (now ASCE’s chief operating have the biggest influence on civil and environmental
and strategy officer), who outlined ASCE’s Future engineering over time: alternative energy; autonomous
World Vision initiative and associated educational vehicles; climate change; high-tech construction; material
opportunities and challenges. sciences; and smart cities. Future worlds will be created
Buckwalter stated that the profession is in the early by looking at a number of potential outcomes associated
stages of disruption from a number of technologies with each trend and grouping them into possible spaces.
and advancements, including the Internet of Things, Buckwalter indicated that it was difficult to predict when
technological autonomy, machine learning, and things would happen, and as a result, exercises focused
transformative new materials. He stated that the on identifying “signposts” where events could lead to
aerospace industry adapted to accommodate these multiple future scenarios and how each would be dealt
disruptors a number of years ago, and ASCE leaders with.
recognized that similar adaptation needed to happen It was decided to create narratives and experiences
in civil and environmental engineering, leading to the associated with each future world so that science and
creation of the Future World Vision. Buckwalter stated engineering jargon could be translated into scenario
we live in a world of convergence and that civil and impact. Buckwalter stated that five plausible cities were
environmental engineering professionals must be able identified, each occurring at a set time in the future: a
to collaborate with one another, with other engineering megacity; a rural city; a floating city; a frozen city; and
disciplines, and with non-engineering partners. an off-planet city. Prototypes for each future city will
The Future World Vision development started with be created using virtual reality, with mega- and floating
scenario planning, producing a number of future worlds cities being completed to date. It is hoped that an
involving phenomena that would overwhelm today’s operational construct will be created that looks at the
technology, and then postulated what it would take to impact of each prototype on civil and environmental
arrive at those worlds. These exercises indicated that, engineering down to the street level. He indicated that
for the profession to survive, civil and environmental immersive, 4D computer virtual labs are being created
engineers would urgently need to: prepare for resilience for each prototype that will become more robust as they
for diverse environments and changes in demographics simulate engineering challenges and support learning and
and urbanization; incorporate advances in materials, development via use case activities. Buckwalter stated
computing tools, technologies, and engineering and that, ultimately, these virtual labs will highlight civil and
construction processes; embrace digital models and environmental engineering’s role in addressing future
big data use; increase the pace of innovation and lead world challenges, allow for crowd-sourced solutions,
change; understand systems dynamics and nature permit model growth and improvement, and integrate
of systems and system integration; create linkages, public policy optimization tools to include cost, social
alignments, and collaborations with varied engineering benefit, and return on investment information.
and non-engineering disciplines; and attract new talent
while continuously training and growing careers.

ENGAGEMENT 3
MINI “TED” TALKS

Innovations and Innovators
Four 10-minute mini TED talks provided perspectives academic careers; as a result, they contributed a unique
on innovation, particularly how to engage, excite, and blend of perspectives and ideas. Participants shared a
enlighten the engineering student of today and tomorrow. common passion for high-quality, holistic instruction and
Presenters hailed from different types of institutions learning inside and outside the classroom.
across the country and were at different points in their
Outside the Academy

Marc Hoit, North Carolina State University
Dr. Hoit indicated that the impetus behind ASCEs Innovation Contest was to bring people together to develop
and nurture forward-looking ideas to address major infrastructure issues. He stated that the profession self-
selects thinkers who are not intrinsically creative and postulated that a large portion of the work civil and
environmental engineers complete does not require a Professional Engineer’s license. Dr. Hoit emphasized the
contest is open to anyone and that developed ideas must be presented in a number of creative different forms,
with the penultimate activity being a pitch contest. He stated that one of the contest goals was to develop
engineers who can communicate an idea in three minutes.
College/University Perspective
Alison Wood, Olin College
Dr. Wood indicated that current engineering curricula are organized in blocks and that the blocks are oftentimes
disconnected. She stated that these blocks must disappear and emphasized the need for disciplinary
integration in engineering higher education so that future engineers’ systems and transdisciplinary skills can
be developed and strengthened. Olin develops and strengthens these skills by offering a number of co-
taught, transdisciplinary systems engineering courses and by integrating design thinking and science and the
humanities throughout the curriculum. Dr. Wood indicated that Olin still has topics that are not well integrated
into the transdisciplinary model, such as engineering ethics, and that they are working to address this issue. She
stated that project-based learning is one way for integration to occur. Dr. Wood ended her talk by emphasizing
that civil and environmental engineering’s relevancy as a systems-based field can be demonstrated using a
number of approaches, such as focusing on sustainable systems.
Faculty Perspective
Brett Story, Southern Methodist University
A specific initiative focused on exposing future engineers to civil and environmental engineering innovation and
on developing essential, systems thinking skills in high school students was summarized by Dr. Story. The Smart
Infrastructure Innovation Initiative (S3i) helps produce high school students who are excited about the field
and better prepared for engineering curricula through experiential learning and the creation of a continuum
that attempts to blur the lines between secondary and higher education. Students focus on the development
of solutions to real-world problems in an interdisciplinary way.

NSF Workshop Perspective
Lucio Soibelman, University of Southern California
The final mini TED talk was given by Dr. Soibelman, who summarized the recently completed NSF workshop and
listed identified issues and outcomes. The intent was to highlight how AI is affecting the civil and environmental
engineering field and, subsequently, curricula. Dr. Soibelman stated that a number of issues associated with AI
integration into the field and curricula were identified, including a professional culture that does not promote
sharing data, other fields driving change, a lack of curricular emphasis on development of programming skills, a
dramatic increase in data science programs and subsequent reduction in the number of civil and environmental
engineering students who have an interest in programming and AI, and that our field is stuck on basic science
skills while other engineering fields have advanced to development of new skills. Outcomes included
suggesting changes to training and curriculum, such as offering programming and AI tutorials to students at
technical conferences, classifying data science as a basic science, and working with other, similarly minded
groups and organizations. Dr. Soibelman indicated that the group identified clear action items that included
increasing data literacy by suggesting updates to curricula to include development of sensor technology and
data literacy skills, creating faculty development opportunities in the machine learning, AI, and data science
domains, developing relationships with key data science and AI industry partners, and development of co-
curricular activities with data science programs.

ENGAGEMENT 3
PECHAKUCHAS
Curriculum Innovation
A “PechaKucha” is a fast-paced type of presentation in issues with the help of peers and the instructor. This
which speakers have 20 slides timed and set to change develops skills necessary in engineering practice and
over after 10 seconds. This format is good to cover a lot valued by employers. We believe this approach best
of information quickly and from multiple perspectives. prepares students for their post-graduate careers.
These brief presentations were packed with information,
delivered concisely and quickly. The following pages
are the abstracts for each speakers’ presentation. These
speakers were selected by the Conference Program “Achieving Change in Civil Engineering
Committee from submissions to a call for abstracts sent Education: Building Community and
to civil engineering department heads in the United Expertise to Change Educational Practices
States. and Culture”
Caroline Bennett, Ph.D., P.E.
Director, School of Engineering
“Using the Grand Challenges of Engineering University of Kansas
to Complement a Civil Engineering
Curriculum” In this PechaKucha-style presentation, implementation
Angel Perez strategies and results will be shared for a highly successful,
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering multi-level change initiative at the University of Kansas.
Quinnipiac University The change initiative has been aimed at encouraging
and supporting shifts in teaching practices, culture, and
The Civil Engineering department at Quinnipiac curricular innovations toward evidence-based practices
University designed a course sequence to integrate and approaches that have been shown to support
the non-technical aspects of engineering practice into student progression and retention, learning outcomes,
the curriculum. This sequence parallels the technical and diversity.
content of the curriculum and uses the fourteen National The change model has relied on an approach that
Academy of Engineering (NAE) Grand Challenges as focuses on departments as the most influential locus
context. These complex and multi-disciplinary problems for change. There have been two cornerstones to the
must be solved by engineers and non-engineers who approach: (1) discipline-situated experts were embedded
have a thorough understanding of the technical and into departments as change agents to collaborate
non-technical issues associated with the challenges. with faculty, and (2) meaningful learning communities
Civil Engineering programs traditionally dismiss non- were built out around the embedded experts and
technical issues and focus on technical content. Non- departmental faculty to leverage efforts and accelerate
technical content may be treated only in general change processes. In this model, the embedded experts
education courses or considered only as an afterthought were not instructional designers, but Ph.D.-holders in the
for accreditation. In the Quinnipiac course sequence, discipline they were embedded within as change agents.
students identify non-technical issues in the Grand The transformation initiative has been led in
Challenges in their introductory engineering course. Engineering by a faculty member from Civil Engineering
Students then choose general education courses relevant (the presenter), and notable achievements have been
to those issues. In their last semester, students take a particularly emergent from that department. Specific
non-technical, mixed enrollment capstone course which implementation strategies in Civil Engineering will be
mirrors their Major Design Experience. Non-engineering shared, along with results that have been achieved —
students enrolled provide non-technical knowledge transformed teaching culture and practices, curricular
to help solve these issues. Engineering students are innovations, and improved student outcomes.
able to focus on societal, ethical, and economical

fundamentals yet to tackle engineering design challenges.
“Developing Inclusive Content for Technical This presentation describes an innovative format for
Courses” a traditional Introduction to Civil Engineering course
that focuses on engaging first-year students by making
Tiago Forin fundamental civil design concepts accessible from the
Engineering Clinic Instructor and RevED Project beginning.
Coordinator, Rowan University This course revision includes three pedagogical
strategies for engaging first-year civil engineering
The National Science Foundation awarded the students: experimental learning techniques to allow
Revolutionizing Engineering and Computer Science students to relate to the material, use of discipline-specific
Departments (RED) grant to Rowan University’s Civil professional practitioners as instructors, and extensive
and Environmental Engineering (CEE) Department in use of case studies to keep the material relevant to the
2016. The RED grant funds a five-year longitudinal study real world. The department also developed an innovative
for examining the climate of diversity and inclusion in structure for the class, wherein students would attend
an engineering program and creating interventions and three classes in a row with each of the six professional-
tools to improve that climate. The RED grant also enables practitioner instructors, shifting between instructors
the means to initiate broad institutional changes to the over the 18 class sessions offered during the quarter. This
entire university modeled after the initiatives created rotating structure allows for a focused introduction to six
by the engineering department. Now in the third year of key civil engineering topics: construction engineering,
the study, Rowan University has taken steps to improve geotechnical engineering, structural engineering, trans-
the climate of diversity and inclusion through the use portation engineering, water resources engineering, and
of developing course content that focuses on global/ sustainability in civil design.
historical examples and students’ personal experiences.
These particular pathways for developing inclusive
content are based on a few concepts taken from a
framework of critical pedagogy. In critical pedagogy, “A Four-Year Design(-Build-Test) Thread”
students are given an opportunity to make personal
Sarah Christian
connections to the content being taught and develop a
Assistant Teaching Professor
broader perspective of the applications of that content Carnegie Mellon University
knowledge to the world around them. Our efforts have
included multiple assignments and projects across David Dzombak
different CEE courses in material science, transportation, Hamerschlag University Professor and Department
construction materials, and statics that allow students Head
to explore deeper connections with the technical Carnegie Mellon University
engineering concepts.
Through a sequence of four project courses threaded
with key design-related themes, undergraduates
gain hands-on engineering experience as they apply
“An Engaging Introduction to Civil knowledge from core courses to projects in each year of
Engineering Design: An innovative format the curriculum. The repeated opportunities to solve ill-
to improve curriculum accessibility for first- defined, open-ended problems help students to become
year civil engineering students” more comfortable with teamwork, self-guided learning,
communication, and the ambiguity that permeates real
Rebecca L. Oulton
projects. By building and testing their designs in each of
Assistant Professor, Environmental
these courses, students learn the importance of effective
California Polytechnic State University
design communication, strategies for addressing
One of the challenges with introducing first-year students uncertainty, planning, and constructibility. The project
to any engineering curriculum is making the material courses focus on the same design skills and processes,
relateable and engaging before they have completed but the level of complexity of the learning objectives
their fundamental courses in mathematics, physics, increases as students advance through the sequence. The
chemistry, etc. Students come to college eager to leap projects span the breadth of the field, providing students
into their major and change the world, but without the with a sense of the diversity of challenges engaged by

civil engineers and their importance to communities
and individuals. The opportunity to collaborate through
these projects helps to build a strong cohort early in the “Frontloading the civil engineering
curriculum. Both student agency in their learning, as well curriculum: Introduction to Infrastructure”
as their confidence increase as they frame and solve
problems collaboratively. Students are able to build a Mike Penn and Christina Curras
portfolio to demonstrate specific experience on a range Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
of projects and their ability to be flexible, adaptable, University of Wisconsin-Platteville
and creative in addressing modern challenges in civil Traditional curricula provide students with limited
engineering.
exposure to civil engineering in the first two years of

study. The third year is typically when students enroll
in core sub-discipline courses (e.g., construction,
“Bridging the Gap in Construction transportation), often as “silo” courses with no prescribed
Education” order. Shortcomings of this approach are: 1) students may
not get exposure to some sub-disciplines until late in the
Clifton Farnsworth third year, or perhaps even the fourth year, and 2) students
Assistant Professor do not gain appreciation of the interconnectedness of
Brigham Young University infrastructure as a system until later in the curriculum.
With National Science Foundation funding, our
In some parts of the world (including within the US)
department collaboratively developed and implemented
construction management has somewhat evolved as a
a second-year Introduction to Infrastructure course.
separate discipline away from civil engineering. In many
Students gain exposure to: the current condition of the
ways this has created an academic gap, although the
nation’s infrastructure; the importance of infrastructure
two disciplines are mutually dependent and necessarily
to the nation’s economy, security, and public welfare;
complementary within the same industry. Construction
infrastructure as a system; and engineering roles
education within academia takes many different forms:
(design, analysis, planning, monitoring, and inspection).
there are a few true construction engineering programs
Emphasis is placed on how infrastructure decisions
(including a few more recently established); some civil
are influenced by engineering concerns (e.g., design
engineering programs have a construction track; and
codes, resilience, constructibility) and non-technical
in some cases, construction management programs
concerns (e.g., sustainability, social priorities, public-
coexist with civil engineering programs. However, it is far
private partnerships). Student teams also perform field
more common for higher education institutions to have
assessments of local stormwater and transportation
separate civil engineering and construction management
infrastructure. The course has been successfully offered
programs that interact very little with each other.
since 2012 and gives students a broad perspective before
Unfortunately, this has created a general academic gap,
taking core sub-discipline and design courses.
especially regarding infrastructure and other heavy/civil-
related construction curricula. When separated, neither
construction management nor civil engineering programs
tend to provide sufficient depth for the infrastructure “For the Times They are a-Changin’:
and heavy/civil construction sub-discipline. This Curriculum Broadening to Keep Civil and
presentation is intended to define and demonstrate Environmental Engineering Relevant”
this gap, provide models of how a few institutions are
currently bridging it, and ultimately begin a discussion on Jerome P. Lynch, Ph.D.
ways that this gap can be bridged collectively within civil Donald Malloure Department Chair of Civil and
engineering education at large. Environmental Engineering
University of Michigan
How we train civil and environmental engineering (CEE)

students is simply not keeping pace with the technological
changes demanded by the profession. Freshman students
often express strong enthusiasm for career paths focused
on “sustainability” and “smart cities,” yet when they select

majors they are going to other engineering disciplines intensive session in January 2019. Their results brought
because they feel these disciplines better prepare new insights and directions to the infrastructure research,
them than does CEE. Seeing this trend as a canary in the the seeds of new publications, and provided a significant
coal mine, we have set off to transform our accredited educational experience for both undergraduate and
undergraduate programs to empower our graduates graduate students.
with a broader set of tools necessary for career success.
First, we have transformed many of our math and science
sequences to teach traditional principles through the use
of novel themes. For example, we converted our courses “Mapping the Future of Civil Engineering
in probabilistic methods and computational methods Innovation”
to courses focused on teaching the same concepts but John Schemmel, Ph.D., P.E., FACI
within the context of machine learning and data analytics. Bruce and Gloria Ingram Endowed Chair in Engineering
Second, we added new courses to the curriculum needed Texas State University
to expand the toolset of students. For example, we have a With the fall 2019 semester, Texas State University will
required course in sensors that teaches electrical circuits begin offering a new undergraduate Civil Engineering
using embedded systems. Finally, we have partnered with program with a holistic emphasis on urban-based,
other departments to create major-minor combinations technology-enhanced infrastructure (TEI). The program
that broaden the students' education. For example, we curricula is transformative in that it combines a strong
offer a program in smart cities that has students major in foundation in traditional Civil Engineering principles with
CEE but minor in computer science. These changes have a unique education in the emerging sub-discipline of
driven strong growth in our undergraduate enrollments smart infrastructure technologies. Embedded throughout
over the past five years. the curriculum, extending longitudinally from first-year
introductory courses through senior-level electives, are
concepts and curricular components related to TEI. In
“THINK-PLAY-HACK: A New Model addition to classic analysis and design of infrastructure
for Teaching Data Science Skills to CEE assets, graduates will have experience with a wide range
Students” of sensor devices, data transmission and storage systems,
big data and machine learning protocols, predictive
Barbara Minsker modeling, and automated infrastructure management
Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering technologies. Moreover, the curriculum includes a five-
Southern Methodist University course sequence addressing the breadth of concepts
associated with technology-enhanced infrastructure.
“THINK-PLAY-HACK” (TPH) is a paradigm for innovation
Developed in cooperation with Geography, Mathematics,
inspired by the group-dynamics research of University
Computer Science, Construction Science and
of Chicago sociologist James Evans. Over 3-5 days,
Management, Biology, and Electrical Engineering, several
observers and community experts embed themselves
of the program’s required and elective courses are truly
in the THINK-PLAY-HACK model, working on ideas and
interdisciplinary. A panel of external reviewers, which
data analytics alongside faculty and students.
included ASCE past President Andy Hermann, described
• THINK: Development of a conceptual model.
the program in their final report as “distinguished from
Expert corners guide scope and problem
most, if not all” Civil Engineering programs in the nation
definition. by “forward thinking and proactive planning.”
• PLAY: Exploring available data, methods,
algorithms, and theories. Ends with competitive
team pitches on project ideas.
• HACK: Teams analyze and visualize data and
present findings. Teams compete for the most
insightful results.
The first TPH pilot focused on infrastructure equity

and brought more than 30 participants to SMU for a 3-day

Constructing
ENGAGEMENT 4
Moving Vision to Action 1 and 2
Jessica Burnham, M.F.A., Southern Methodist University
Gray Garmon, M.Arch., University of Texas at Austin
the Future DISCUSSION

Major Topics and Wild Ideas
O
ne of the goals of the Summit was for ASCE to walk
away with actionable items as civil engineering
looks to the future of education. ASCE partnered
with Southern Methodist University’s Master of Arts in
Design and Innovation (MADI) program to develop a
workshop that would allow Summit attendees to share
their opinions regarding civil engineering education
priorities.
Constructing the Future 27

ENGAGEMENT 4
Moving Vision to Action 1

Jessica Burnham, M.F.A., Southern Methodist University
Gray Garmon, M.Arch., University of Texas at Austin
Rationale of the Process share their personal perspective before understanding

the collective perspective of ASCE members as a whole.
Human-Centered Design is one of several processes for We prompted attendees with a series of questions
making sense of and improving complicated scenarios. that specifically addressed some of the larger, more
When tasked with helping ASCE vision plan the future of abstract philosophies surrounding the experience of civil
civil engineering education, it was clear we needed to get engineering education.
each individual from the large group of attendees to feel
accounted for and heard as a part of the entire process. • To you, what is the purpose of civil engineering
One of the standard methods of Human-Centered education and who is it for?
Design is surfacing assumptions and allowing for personal • What are the focus areas of civil engineering of
reflection first. This allows for groups of people to work the future?
together to reveal commonalities and starting points. • What are some aspirational wishes you have for
The goal of the workshops was to allow everyone the future of civil engineering education?
time from the beginning to reflect on what they had been
• What are some curiosities you have for the future
learning from the Summit and what ideas they’d brought
of this field?
to the table on their own. After individual opinions and
thoughts were captured, people shared those with others • What are some of the wildest ideas you have for
at their table. From there common themes based around the future of civil engineering education?
the People and Needs emerged. Then those themes were
put together as statements of opportunity that would
be acted on in the future. This process of starting with
the individual point of view and distilling down to a few
sets of common ideas helped to keep every attendee
engaged, validate multiple opinions, and kept the group People + Needs
focused on future planning. The next stage in the process was to have participants
pair up with a table partner and share their Point of
View statement sheets. Pairs were asked to articulate
the “people” and the “needs” identified in their point of
view statements. Once table partners had identified their
Point of View Statements people and needs, they were asked to reconvene with
the rest of their table group (on average eight individuals)
We started the process by asking all attendees to write out
to combine and articulate common themes. An example
their own “Point of View” statements. Of the 193 people
of people and needs, and how they were synthesized
in attendance, 172 sheets were filled out. The goal of this
into themes.
activity was to capture a crowd-sourced perspective
of the current state of civil engineering education and
its future. This created an opportunity for individuals to

Opportunity Statements Ranking the Top 20
The next step of the process drops the “people” and Statements
“needs” into an opportunity statement that looks like this:
When the Summit reconvened on Day 3, the ASCE Civil
Engineering Summit Executive Committee shared the 20
EXAMPLE
opportunity statements (listed in the next section). Each
Graduate Students have real-world experiences individual attendee was then asked to rank (via electronic
need to survey) the 20 statements according to what they felt was
People Need
the highest priority for ASCE. The results of this vote were
they can get a high-quality first job. projected in the room.

so that
Opportunity
The goal for this section is to start identifying gaps

and opportunities for the field of civil engineering and Product Development:
education development, as well as alignment of interest
across tables. Table Brainstorms
Each table was randomly assigned one of the Top 20
statements (two tables were duplicates) and asked to
generate potential solutions and recommendations. As
they brainstormed, tables were asked to consider the
Synthesize Opportunity following:
Statements • Who: What people, organizations, or groups

could be involved
This synthesis of the Opportunity Statements was
• Actions and verbs: What actual actions need to
conducted by the ASCE Civil Engineering Summit
take place and what needs to be done
Executive Committee and a team of facilitators from the
Design and Innovation program at SMU. This team took • Short- and long-term action items: What could
the collection of 156 opportunity statements, as written this wild idea look like in the short term (5-12
by the table groups of attendees, and synthesized them months) or long term (10-25 years)
down to 20 opportunity statements that are intended to • Wild ideas that may surface during the process:
inform future actions for ASCE. While brainstorming on some logistic ideas, wild
The ASCE Executive Committee used the spread- ideas tend to pop up more organically and need
sheet to do a first-round vote for which statements they to be captured and built upon.
felt were most relevant and useful; the MADI facilitators
included their thoughts on which opportunities were
viable for action and had the most promise for innovative
ideas.
This left 28 opportunity statements. In order to reduce
this list down to the 20 most relevant statements, each
ASCE Executive Committee member was given three
votes to narrow down the list. Both groups then worked
together to refine the wording of the final statements.

ENGAGEMENT 4
Moving Vision to Action 2

Top 20 Opportunity Statements with Wild Ideas
F rom the workshop and committee group work, 20

opportunity statements were generated and then
voted on in priority order. Once the priority order was
brainstorm wild ideas that could be used to take that
statement from vision to action. Below is each statement
along with the wild ideas that were reported out.
determined, each statement was assigned to a table to
1. Students need to learn systems thinking so that they are

prepared for current and future societal challenges.
• Create “Smart Living Labs” that students engage in regularly
2. Students need to develop people-focused skills so that

they can design infrastructure that is relevant to society.
• Promote empathy in students by having faculty provide the example. This can be achieved by
providing empathy training for faculty (example through exec ed), prioritizing people skills in hiring, and
having faculty without people skills lose tenure
• Students need to develop people-focused skills so that they can design infrastructure that is relevant
to society
• Every course has a community-based project that includes a public forum of stakeholders
• Leadership (including leading without formalized authority) is included in every CE curriculum
• Empathy becomes an essential student/ABET outcome and is an essential criteria in hiring, promoting,
and faculty development
• Faculty integrate professional skills into existing curriculum in order to ensure CE’s ability to drive
societal change
• Schools provide and faculty engage in professional development to build capacity for teaching and
applying people-focused skills
• Schools and faculty value people-driven research and education to show the value in various ways,
including incentivizing it
3. Faculty need to emphasize systems thinking so that

sustainable, socially just infrastructure can be designed.
• Require community service as part of the engineering curriculum early on so they can see the socio-
economic impact our projects have
• Require students to attend public meetings to gain a better understanding of the critical component
and the non-technical components impacts of a project
• Engage non-engineers to teach systems thinking
• Freshmen find global problems to solve as engineers with social/environ/systems awareness

4. Civil Engineering faculty need to integrate creativity into
the curriculum to build thought leaders and innovators.
• End tenure
• In-department peer review of course contents and teaching methods, to identify opportunities for
innovation
• Employ more open-ended problem-based learning incorporating ambiguity and uncertainty
• CE departments teach our own service courses (e.g., math, physics) to include CE context and
applications
• CE faculty need to integrate creativity into the curriculum to build thought leaders and innovators
• Faculty need to emphasize systems thinking so that sustainable, socially just infrastructure can be
designed.
5. Faculty need to adopt evidence-based instructional

methods so that students can develop critical thinking
skills in order to evaluate alternative approaches of civil
engineering like sustainability and equity.
• Promotion and tenure should be based on teaching innovation and effectiveness as much as it is on
research scholarship
• All courses, throughout the curriculum, should have project-based learning
6. K-12 students need to be exposed to the challenges of the

future so that as future Civil Engineers they are equipped
to solve them.
• Netflix CE reality series about educators and practicing professionals to create excitement and
outreach around the profession
• Develop CE infrastructure video game
• Eliminate CE (and other engineering) majors and organize by problems
• Replace concrete canoe and steel bridge competition with spark by ramboll
• Develop CE-centric K-12 curriculum that is aligned with teaching standards
7. Faculty need to provide learning opportunities inside

and outside the classroom so that students can build
portfolios of life experiences.
• Create an entire semester of courses (on campus/off campus) that allow students to focus on a major
engineering challenge, such as a “Grand Challenge,” Sustainable Development Goal, or Future Vision
scenario
• Turn the classroom into a community resource to provide real-world data (sensors/measurement) for
CE studies/projects (preliminary/exploratory-type work)

8. Civil Engineering students need to exhibit the attitudes
and behaviors of innovation so that they can respond to
future challenges.
• Structural engineering will drop prescriptive codes and adopt performance-based design
• ASCE develops and funds “Go Fund Me”-type student innovation projects
• Freshmen find global problems to solve as engineers with social/environmental/systems awareness
9. University administrators need to be adaptable and

offer resources so that new curricular approaches are

encouraged.
• New curriculum approaches supported by eliminating departments
• Industry endows/supports a course–“Faculty as Race Car Drivers”
• Apple wallet (discount) by class
• Funding/endowment to support teaching ASCE and other opportunities
• National CE curriculum–1 individual who teaches class
10. Faculty need to emphasize systems thinking so that

sustainable, socially just infrastructure can be designed.
• Bring in clusters/cohorts of people who represent an underrepresented group (at multiple levels, e.g.,
faculty, students, etc.)
• Focus on inclusion/retention once you have them
• Provide facilities: daycare, lactation rooms, gender neutral bathrooms
• Continue to increase the pipeline at all levels and rethink (really rethink) admission requirements and
processes
• Work to change the campus climate/culture
11. Underprepared students need access to supplementary

education so that they can be successful in Civil
Engineering and careers.
• Take Engineering supplemental education to the street, on wheels, in libraries, in boys/girls clubs
• Flip Bloom’s Taxonomy -- start at top of pyramid with the problem/opportunity
• Bring math/writing supplemental to kids
• Industry gap year/time (arranged by university)
12. Universities need to develop a culture of equity and

inclusion so that we produce a more diverse future
workforce.
• ABET requires each student to have at least one high-impact experience (e.g., service-learning,
internship, co-op, study abroad, EWB)
• Engineers need help from experts to do diversity and inclusion correctly-partner with experts to get it right
• Faculty work to create a sense of community by being open and welcoming

13. Civil Engineering faculty need to develop more flexible
assessment criteria so that curricula can respond to
worldwide challenges and opportunities.
• Incorporate self-assessment and meta-cognition training for students to assess themselves, identify
gaps, and fill these gaps to address emerging problems
• Do away with grades so that students can embrace failure as part of learning
14. Accrediting bodies need to foster adaptive programs so

that curricula can rapidly address current and future

societal needs.
• Mandate large-scale change regularly
• Eliminate tenure
• Eliminate accreditation
• Require accreditation training as part of Ph.D. programs
• Have teaching-faculty take lead in curriculum
15. ASCE needs to provide a repository of global teaching

best practices so that the rate of innovation is increased.
• ASCE/faculty/industry professionals develop a mobile app that serves as a repository for best
practices
• Create 1-minute videos on innovative teaching methods and push to phones via ASCE
• Faculty get paid for creating innovative content for repository
• Industry will develop content for repository
• Online content for Intro to Civil Engineering course
• CE Division of ASCE come out from their comfort zone and gather Best Practices on CE innovation
16. Civil Engineering departments need to better

communicate the application of a CEBS degree so that
students see its value in any career path.
• Civil Engineers are in movies, TV series, and/or are a Muppet on Sesame Street to give instant
recognition and awareness to a wide audience.
• CE departments need to better communicate the application of CE degrees so that students see its
value in any career path
• Expand our definition of CE and Engineers—include computer scientists, software engineers, political
scientists, policymakers.
• CE degree is a springboard
• CEs should organize to elect CEs to public offices to provide creative solutions to infrastructure needs
as well as raise the profile of CE for potential CE students

17. Faculty need to identify new metrics for scholarly
productivity so that promotions are awarded to those
addressing society’s future needs.
• University leaders need to develop better ways to measure teaching to create alternatives for tenure
and promotion
• Government gives $10B to CE department
• Eliminate tenure/replacement
• Don’t adopt #17 as is
18. Decision-makers need to remove regulatory roadblocks

so that innovation can flourish.
• In 2020, first civil engineer elected president.
• Government commits to a “Man on the Moon” emphasis on infrastructure renewal and promises to
commit resources to support that initiative
• Forced sabbaticals with industry
• Start a PAC for supporting CE running for office
• Eliminate tenure
• Secondary education not supported by property tax
19. Industry-University consortia need to provide startup

opportunities with funding so that students can be
energized (sparkle) by an entrepreneurial pipeline.
• Provide opportunity for all students to build and design projects to solve community problems
• Integrate entrepreneurship into other design projects (not just senior design)
• Recognize that students create IP value -- manage those issues to focus on created value
20. Higher Ed Institutions need to form consortia so

that emergent topics can be team-taught with virtual
technology.
• Organize a CE systems walkout for 1 day to convey the value of CE professionals
• Re-brand CE as Systems Engineering

DISCUSSION
Major Topics and Themes

T
he Summit proposed a vision of civil engineering, a major driver of the dissolution of traditional "boundaries"
defined at its most basic level: that define a particular engineering discipline. Summit
participants dared to ask the question: “In the context
Civil Engineering is a global, holistic of the mid-21st century, what is a civil engineer?” Two
profession that serves the needs of all elements related to this most fundamental question
people. reflect the impact of technological advancement and the
evolving role of the civil engineer in society.
In the future-oriented focus of the Summit, it was ASCE’s The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025
agreed that the needs of people, and the contexts related (published in 2006) anticipates the evolutionary, holistic
to meeting those needs, are becoming increasingly nature of the role of civil engineers:
complex in our ever-evolving world. Thus, the educational
systems that prepare future engineers must also evolve “In 2025, civil engineers will serve as
to address this complexity. master builders, environmental stewards,
innovators and integrators, managers
Thematically, three goals emerged from synthesizing of risk and uncertainty, and leaders in
the opportunity statements. The field of civil engineering shaping public policy.”
needs to:
1. Be a Profession that serves people; An undergraduate civil engineering program is not
2. Have a Culture that includes people; and sufficient to fully prepare a graduate to be a master
builder, steward, innovator, manager, and leader. This is
3. Provide an Education that prepares people to
recognized in the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge,
innovate.
3rd Edition (CEBOK3), which calls for a combination
As a pathway to achieving these goals, four major of formal education, structured mentoring, and self-
objectives emerged from the discussions and workshop directed learning to position the civil engineer for career
activities. These objectives are described in detail below. success. However, an undergraduate civil engineering
curriculum provides the foundation on which to build
the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the future civil
OBJECTIVE 1: engineer.
Reexamine, and potentially redefine, the domain It is clear that the already rapid pace of technological
of Civil Engineering. change and advancement will continue unabated – and
A clear consensus among Summit participants is that very possibly accelerate. In his plenary remarks, Arup
the world is becoming increasingly complex – thus, the Foresight engineer/futurist Chris Leubkeman observed the
challenges faced by engineers are becoming increasingly mega-trend if it can be automated, it will be automated …”
complex. One aspect of this complexity relates to the New tools and new computational and analysis
interconnected nature of infrastructure, environmental, techniques are being introduced into the profession at
political, and social systems. Such interconnectedness is a rate beyond that to which most engineering education

programs can react and adapt. Although this issue is not OBJECTIVE 2:
necessarily new, Summit participants struggled with the Elevate Professional Skills to a truly equal footing
disparity between the current and anticipated pace of with technical skills.
innovation in the profession versus that in education. Certainly, the need for strong professional skills has long
A major theme that emerged at the Summit related been recognized by both civil engineering educators and
to technological advancement is the need to expand practitioners.
the domain of civil engineering. Three areas receiving The ASEE “Grinter Report” (1955) included two
significant attention by Summit participants included: outcomes related to this concept:
1. Learning new competencies related to emerging 1. “An insistence upon the development of a high
technologies that are rapidly changing civil
level of performance in the oral, written, and

engineering (e.g., data science, robotics, graphical communication of ideas”
sensors, drones, and virtual reality), as well as
2. “A continuing, concentrated effort to strengthen
the knowledge and skills needed to use those
and integrate work in the humanistic and social
technologies.
sciences into engineering programs”
1. Integrating more systems thinking into civil
The Summary Report of the 1995 Civil Engineering
engineering education through real-world
Education Conference contained numerous recommen-
problem solving, project-based education, and
dations related to professional skills, such as:
high-impact experiences such as internships,
1. “Emphasize the need for sensitivity to culturally
service learning, study abroad, student
diverse groups”
organizations, and competitions.
2. “Encourage students to convey the importance
1. Promoting a culture of innovation within the
of engineering works to non-engineering
profession through more directed teaching
students on campus”
of creative processes, entrepreneurship, and
evaluation of risk as an integral part of curricula 3. “Recognize communication skills, leadership
and mentored practice. skills, management, and teamwork by creating
awards for students”
These Summit discussions give rise to a major 4. “Provide learning from non-verbal
implication for 21st-century civil engineering education: communication and listening skills”
curricular flexibility. Indeed, “flexibility” emerged as 5. “Provide industry speakers to emphasize the
another primary theme among Opportunity Statements importance of communication skills, leadership,
related to civil engineering curricula, with five (5) of management, and teamwork”
the “top 20” Opportunity Statements addressing the
The CEBOK3, published in 2019, also recognizes this
issue. Summit participants called for civil engineering
need. It includes six outcomes related to professional
departments to define for themselves a program of
skills: communication, teamwork and leadership,
study to meet the needs of their stakeholders within very
lifelong learning, professional attitudes, professional
broad overarching guidelines. Such flexibility enables
responsibilities, and ethical responsibilities.
a more rapid response to technological changes in the
Multiple generations of educators and practitioners
profession; an integration of instruction addressing future
(1955, 1995, 2019) have thus recognized the necessity for
roles of civil engineers; and an elevation of professional
professional skills in the successful civil engineer. It is
skills as a requirement of civil engineering education.
curious, however, that these multiple generations were
These benefits must be balanced by a recognition of the
all moved to emphasize the need for increasing the level
benefit of having some degree of uniformity in education
of professional skills in graduates – suggesting that the
across the profession.
profession continues to lag in the development of these
skills in our students.
Summit participants placed significant emphasis on
this topic; of the 20 prioritized Opportunity Statements,
seven (7) address professional skills and abilities. Moving
forward, topics related to Professional Skills should be
elevated in importance within curricula – to be thought

of not as "desirable," but "required," on an equal basis with
the various technical/design skills currently emphasized
in undergraduate programs.
OBJECTIVE 3:
Develop a diverse, inclusive, equitable, and
engaging culture within the civil engineering
profession.
Summit participants engaged in significant discussion

regarding “professional culture” and related topics in the
context of civil engineering. Although it may be tempting
to place these topics and discussions within the realm
of professional skills and attitudes, this subject rose to
represent a major theme of the event. At least four (4) of
the “top 20” prioritized Opportunity Statements address
the concept of civil engineering culture. Participants
explored the distinct yet interconnected nature of
diversity, inclusion, and equity; the need to engage
students at all levels; and the concept of permeating the
student educational experience with these concepts.
Summit participants suggested that the following
elements need to be addressed by the entire profession,
within both the education and practitioner communities:
• Dedicated and intentional instruction and training
related to diversity, inclusion, and equity;
• Increasing representation within the profession—
including student bodies, faculty ranks, and
practitioners (at all levels);
• Modeling inclusivity and equity in the classroom
and in the workplace; and
• Engaging students at all levels (K-12, college/
university), and communicating the value of a civil
engineering degree.
OBJECTIVE 4:
Implement a regular schedule of national/
international civil engineering education events
and dedicate resources to address findings.
Planners of the 2019 Civil Engineering Education Summit
consulted a significant body of literature to explore
topics and themes arising from previous assessments of
engineering education. As noted earlier in this summary,
there have been remarkable similarities in topical areas
and themes arising from these efforts. Issues identified in
the 1955 ASEE report continued to be identified 40 years
later at the 1995 ASCE Conference.

Conclusions
S
ummit participants agreed that the 2019 Civil the conclusion of the Summit, advancement of civil
Engineering Education Summit was highly engineering education will require three elements to TAP
worthwhile, and expressed both hope and the innovation opportunities identified by participants:
confidence that real and significant change could result • Tenacity to ensure that needed change occurs;
from the work accomplished during the Summit. Change • Audacity to propose bold actions and tactics to
will require:
fully realize necessary change; and
• Ongoing commitment of the civil engineering
• Practicality to understand that necessary change
community – educators and practitioners – to
can and must occur over different time scales.
provide the time, effort, and resources necessary
to develop, implement, and monitor actions
Collectively, the vision proposed by the Summit
arising from the Summit recommendations.
participants is bold and far-reaching. The Opportunity
• A regular schedule of civil engineering education Statements identify both near-term and long-term action
events, i.e., on a 6- to 8-year basis, to assess areas that will position the civil engineering profession
progress on initiatives from previous efforts and for continued advancement and leadership through the
to address new challenges and opportunities. mid-21st century. As such, the findings of the Summit
• Support of academia and the profession, provide vital input to future initiatives such as revisions
including ASCE, for resources required to to the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (CEBOK),
develop and implement action items relating to future formulations of the ABET Civil Engineering Program
Criteria (CEPC), ASCE’s Future World Vision, and to civil
the priorities identified at the Summit.
engineering curricula.
Continuing the momentum generated during the

Summit will require time and resources from academia
and the profession, including ASCE, to develop and
implement action items relating to the priorities outlined
above. To this end, the Committee on Education worked
with the Summit Program Committee to approve and
launch a CE Education Summit Working Group in April
2020. The working group, composed of leaders and
participants of the 2019 Education Summit, is charged
with generating ideas for specific action items related to
the four Summit objectives and coordinating with ASCE
to implement these actions through existing or new
committees and initiatives.
In closing, Summit participants recognized that
change in civil engineering education will require
dedication to a shared vision and a collective willingness
to work for it. As presented in summary remarks at
Executive Conclusion 38
Acknowledgments
T
he 2020 Civil Engineering Education Summit would • Norb Delatte, Oklahoma State University
not have been possible without the efforts of • Rick Duschl, Southern Methodist University
these volunteers and staff. Their dedication and
• Gray Garmon, M.Arch., Southern Methodist
hard work are greatly appreciated.
University
Summit Program Planning Committee • Robert Gilbert, University of Texas at Austin

• Randall Kolar, University of Oklahoma
• Kevin Hall (Co-Chair), University of Arkansas
• Steve Lucy, JQ Engineering
• Dan Linzell (Co-Chair), University of Nebraska-
Lincoln • Leslie Nolen, ASCE
• Barbara Minsker (Chair, Summit Local Organizing • Lindsay O’Leary, ASCE Texas Section
Committee), Southern Methodist University • Yvette E. Pearson, Rice University
• Robin Autenrieth, Texas AandM University • Camilla Saviz (Chair, ASCE Committee on
• Glenn Bell, Simpson, Gumpertz, and Heger Education), University of the Pacific
• David Dzombak, Carnegie Mellon University • Devon Skerritt, Southern Methodist University
• Mary Roth, Lafayette College • Shawnita Sterett, Autodesk, Inc.
• Beena Sukumaran, Rowan University • Dan Witliff, GDS Associates, Inc.
• Camilla Saviz (Chair, ASCE Committee on

Education), University of the Pacific ASCE Department Heads
Coordinating Council
• Jerome Hajjar (Chair, ASCE Department Heads
Coordinating Council), Northeastern University • Jerome F. Hajjar (Chair), Northeastern University
• Leslie Nolen, ASCE • Robin Autenrieth, Texas AandM University
• Dion Coward, ASCE • Joel Burken, Missouri Institute of Science and
• Jessica Burnham, M.F.A., Southern Methodist Technology
University • Christina Curras, University of Wisconsin,
• Rick Duschl, Southern Methodist University Platteville
• Ben Fell, California State University, Sacramento
Summit Local Organizing Committee • Kirk Hatfield, University of Florida
• Barbara Minsker (Chair), Southern Methodist • Stephanie Luster-Teasley, North Carolina AandT
University State University
• Robin Autenrieth, Texas AandM University • Barbara Minsker, Southern Methodist University
• Mark Boyd, LCA Environmental • Jay Puckett, University of Nebraska
• Jessica Burnham, M.F.A., Southern Methodist • Chuck Schwartz, University of Maryland
University • Filza H. Walters, Lawrence Technological
• Dion Coward, ASCE University
Acknowledgments 39
• Jason Weiss, Oregon State University • Tania White
• Dion Coward, ASCE • Michael Zaretsky
ASCE Committee on Education Special thanks to Southern Methodist University, the

Lyle School of Engineering and Dean Marc P. Christensen,
• Camilla M. Saviz (Chair), University of the Pacific
Ph.D., and the Department of Civil and Environmental
• Anthony L. Cioffi, New York City College of Engineering and Chair Barbara Minsker, Ph.D., for hosting
Technology/CUNY the 2019 Civil Engineering Education Summit.
• Allen C. Estes, California Polytechnic State Thanks also to the participants of the Summit who
University, San Luis Obispo gave three days at the end of May 2019 to help envision a
new path for civil engineering education. We look forward
• Jerome F. Hajjar, Northeastern University
to following that path with you in the coming years!
• Scott R. Hamilton, York College of Pennsylvania
• Tanya M. Kunberger, Florida Gulf Coast University
• Norma Jean Mattei, University of New Orleans
• Stephen J. Ressler
• Matthew W. Roberts, Southern Utah University
• Leslie E. Nolen, ASCE
Workshop Facilitators
• Matthew Barkley
• Tina Barton
• Jessica Burnham
• Christina Donaldson
• Gray Garmon
• DiMitri Higginbotham
• Kindra Knight
• Edward Li
• Rae'Van Parson
• Devon Skerritt
• Ginnie Snead Roark
• Victoria Sun Esparza
• Keya Tollossa
Acknowledgments 40
- Dan Linzell (Co-Chair), University of Nebraska-Lincoln - Robin Autenrieth, Texas A&M University
- Barbara Minsker, Southern Methodist University - Mark Boyd, LCA Environmental
- Robin Autenrieth, Texas A&M University - Jessica Burnham, Southern Methodist University - MADI
- Glenn Bell, Simpson, Gumpertz, & Heger - Dion Coward, ASCE
- David Dzombak, Carnegie Mellon University - Norb Delatte, Oklahoma State University
- Mary Roth, Lafayette College - Rick Duschl, Southern Methodist University
- Beena Sukumaran, Rowan University - Gray Garmon, Southern Methodist University - MADI
- Camilla Saviz (Chair, ASCE Committee on Education), - Robert Gilbert, University of Texas at Austin
- Randall Kolar, University of Oklahoma
- Jerome Hajjar (Chair, ASCE DHCC), Northeastern University - Steve Lucy, JQ Engineering
- Leslie Nolen, ASCE - Leslie Nolen, ASCE
Sponsors
- Dion Coward, ASCE - Lindsay O’Leary, ASCE Texas Section
- Jessica Burnham, Southern Methodist University - MADI - Yvette Pearson, Rice University
- Rick Duschl, Southern Methodist University - Camilla Saviz (Chair, ASCE Committee on Education),
- Devon Skerritt, Southern Methodist University - MADI

- Shawnita Sterett, Autodesk, Inc.
We gratefully acknowledge the sponsors of the 2019 Civil Engineering Education Summit. Without their generous
support, the Summit would not have been possible.
THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS
SCHOOL OF
COLLEGE OF
Civil andArchitecture
Engineering, Environm and ental
Technology
Engineering
CPandY Inc. Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. AGandE Associates, PLLC Civil Associates, Inc.
Sponsors 41
Appendix
Appendix A: All Opportunity Statements . . 43
Appendix B: Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix 42
Appendix A
All Opportunity Statements

Note: This appendix has not been edited and may not gathered below represent the ideas written by each table
reflect appropriate titles and terms. of attendees. The statements are to be read from left to
right, broken up by the people, needs, and opportunity.

Below are all of the opportunity statements that were
created by the Summit attendees. The “Category” EXAMPLE
column indicates the general audience the statement is
Graduate Students have real-world experiences
addressing, those who can take action on. The list is in
need to
alphabetical order by category. People Need
The statements were created by using the example
template to the right. This allowed attendees to take the they can get a high-quality first job.
so that
needs and people surfaced from the previous activities Opportunity
and turn them into actionable statements. The statements
Category People Need to Opportunity

CE professionals Civil engineering professionals educate the public about government invests in infrastructure
infrastructure
CE professionals Businesses / Industry Collaborate with academia at a Students are prepared to adapt to changing
larger scale and evolving technologies
CE professionals Civil engineering leaders anticipate and leverage future civil engineers are key decision makers in
needs determining the future
CE professionals CE professionals well-developed power skills they can be effective leaders
CE professionals CE professionals clear ethical sustainability they make good decisions
guidelines
CE professionals Well-developed CE professional fundamental understanding of they can protect the built environment
cyber-security/tech
CE professionals Civil engineers develop power skills they are effective influencers of the decision
makers
CE professionals More engineers assume public leadership roles they can influence policy and funding
and responsibilities decisions
CE professionals Professionals develop communication and they value both equally and know the don't
marketing skills and technical exist separately
skills
CE professionals Engineers watch more cartoons they are more creative
CE professionals Civil engineers adapt to emerging technologies the discipline remains relevant
CE professionals Problem solvers and all engineers broaden participation social inequities are eliminated and people
can contribute to their full potential
CE professionals CEs get elected so they can save the planet
CE professionals Practicing civil engineers be more people-focused infrastructure meets the needs of all parts of
society in equitable ways
CE professionals Civil engineers learn to play the policy game they can foster rational infrastructure decision
making
CE professionals CE professionals ensure inclusive practices our solutions truly serve society's needs
CE professionals Civil engineers educate policymakers on policymakers can choose reasonable policies
implcations of decisions
Appendix 43
CE professionals Professionals collaborate with educators students are better prepared for a successful
career in industry (public and/or private)
CE professionals Civil engineers embrace and lead change as a profession we remain relevant
CE professionals Civil engineering industry provide experiential learning students can apply their knowledge learned in
partners projects in the workplace the classroom to solve real-world problems
Employers Employers need to create a work employees have satisfying careers, retained
environment long term, and fulfilled
Employers CE employers and programs adopt attractive culture and we can attract and retain CEs who represent
climate for all the society we serve

Employers Employers Provide scholarships and Talented students are attracted to CEE
resources
Employers Employers support lifelong learning through student will continue to progress in the
mentoring and financial support profession following graduation
Employers Civil Engineering employers and be accountable and upportive innovation can occur and communities are
industry of high standards of practice well served
Faculty CE faculty establish more visionary and curricula can evolve more quickly and
flexible minimum standards uniquely to enable embracing and addressing
of worldwide challenges and opportunities
Faculty Civil Engineering Faculty Integrate and teach creativity We can build a culture of innovation into
and innovation into the the profession and create societal thought-
curriculum leaders
Faculty Faculty adopt evidence-based critical thinking skills are developed by
instructional methods students to evaluate alternatives considering
sustainability and equity for users
Faculty Civil engineering faculty equip students to understand they can work inclusively in a global
equity and diversity environment
Faculty Faculty new metrics for scholarly the promotions match those thinking forward
productivity and addressing the future needs of society
Faculty Faculty, instructors, and CE Emphasize systems thinking Sustainable, socially just infrastructure
supporters systems can be designed
Faculty Faculty, practioners, and ASCE appropriately and factually they can impact policy infrastructure funding
communicate to influencers and models and ensure implementation of long-
the public lasting sustainable infrastructure
Faculty Faculty employ inclusive teaching there is a diverse workforce to meet societal
practices needs
Faculty CE faculty be able to work with faculty to develop relevant and exciting causes to
from other disciplines (EE, CS, retain students in CE and prepare them for the
geography...) CE profession of the future
Faculty Faculty be provided incentives our curriculum can evolve
Faculty CE department chairs develop a rubric they recognize teaching, research, and service
contributions
Faculty All faculty have critical conversations they can work in multidisciplinary ways
Faculty Faculty and CEE stduents go into K-12 students can be exposed to and value CEE
Faculty Faculty create curriculum experiences students appreciate global connectivity and
engagement
Faculty University faculty remove barriers they can meet transdisciplinary challenges
Faculty Educators modernize curriculum students can meet new challenges
Faculty Educators modernize methods and we can reach a diverse student population
materials
Faculty Civil engineering educators be future-thinking curriculum is flexible and adaptable to
changing needs
Faculty CE faculty incorporate digital engineereing students are prepared for emerging job
opportunities
Appendix 44
Faculty Faculty Use advance pedagogical tools The future needs of civil engineers and society
are met
Faculty CE faculty develop and incorporate novel students are driven to and remain interested
learning techinques in CE
Faculty Faculty innovate curricula students are better prepared to meet the
challenges of the future
Faculty Faculty and educators reorganize away from traditional graduates can better meet the needs of an
silos ever-changing world
Faculty Educators embrace programmatic changes students can develop KSAs to innovate and
and educational opportunities create value for current and future society
Faculty Faculty acquire knowledge and skills they can integrate new technologies into the
curriculum to keep CE relevant
Faculty Faculty broaden their horizons they can advance civil engineering education
Faculty Educators reimagine curriculum CE students can solve problems of the future
Faculty Faculty have a clear understanding of they can meet the future needs of students
the future and society
Faculty Engineering faculty have growth and support they can vary structure and location of
education
Faculty Faculty use systems approaches students can be trained to engineer civil
systems
Faculty Faculty have flexibility students receive the progressive curriculum
we think they need
Faculty Educators embrace future innovative students become change agents
knowledge
Faculty Faculty educators resources and future admin they can improve/implement innovative
duties + more time w/ student experiential learning
Faculty Faculty and current CE students feel empowered as technology future graduates can define new higher value
innovators and integrators business models for the profession
Faculty Faculty change we can teach the students of the future
Misc ASCE provide repository for future change will be encouraged within a reasonable
world teaching time
Misc K-12 students be exposed to future challenges they know how CE can help them solve them
Misc Industry-university consortia Sponsor blue sky competitions An entrepreneurial pipeline can be built and
with startup bootcamps and students can be energized (sparkle)
funding
Misc AEC constituents rethink degree paths students can receive the education needed in
their lifetime to fully benefit society
Misc Accrediting bodies foster flexible and adaptive programs and curricula can rapidly adapt to
program innovation current/future societal needs
Misc Owners trust highly skilled practitioners they can make more informed, sustainable
decisions
Misc Developing communities see civil engineer as a profession addressing social and cultural norms that have
and CE education as a potential adversely affect their development
avenue for...
Misc Faculty and students understand importance of CE CEs can prioritize public safety and
environmental stewardship
Misc Non-civil engineering value CEs (and vice versa) our rapidly changing ways to deliver
professionals infrastructure services to best provide for
society's needs
Misc Policymakers/Elected Officials know the value of infrastructure we can meet societal challenges
services
Misc AI machines be socially conscious they benefit society
Misc Parents of undergraduates work together with faculty undergraduates can get better education
Appendix 45
Misc PEVs of ABET clarify what they want everyone can stop guessing
Misc Underrepresented Minorities Need to receive affordable They are successful
education
Misc The Civil Engineering Community Be mindful of the need of Access to sustainable infrastructure can
vulnerable population and happen
communities
Misc Students and faculty mentored experiences they develop as leaders in the profession
Misc CE Teachers provide data-driven experiences analytical skills and competencies are
cultivated and incorporated in design
Misc Students, families, counselors, be exposed to STEM they see the benefits to themselves and their
and teachers from under- opportunties and what civil communities
resourced K-12 schools engineers do / could do
Misc Aspiring engineers be creative they produce innovative and sustainable
designs
Misc K-12 understand quality0of-life they become more interested in CE
issuses
Misc High school students be prepared with the
fundamental concept of civil
engineering
Misc Leaders (stakeholders, collaborate the rate of innovation is increased
practitioners, educators)
Misc K-12 educators know what civil engineers they can better prepare students for programs
contribute
Misc Construction companies invest in and drive innovative they have professionals they will need in the
curriccula future
Misc Decision makers remove regulatory roadblocks innovation can flourish
Policymakers Policy and government leaders collaborate with CE educators they understand and develop solutions to
and professionals infrastructure and providers
Policymakers Policymakers be educated on infrastructure they can make more informed decisions to
improve quality of life
Policymakers Policymakers have the future vision of public policy includes equity as a social focus
diversity and inclusivity
Policymakers Industry and government fund CE education there is a vibrant CE workforce to design
infrastructure to meet society's needs for
sustainable, resilient infrastructure
Policymakers Policymakers understand implication of they will support sustainable infrastructure
not investing in sustainable investment
infrastructure
Policymakers Politicians understand the long-term nature multiyear megafunding can be applied to the
of public works projects (civil public benefit
design)
Policymakers Public/politicians support funding for designs/projects can improve quality of life
infrastructure
Society and Humans Everyone understand the consequences we can build a better, sustainable, resilient
of their actions world
Society and Humans Society appreciate technical knowledge we can achieve a more equal, resilient,
sustainable society
Society and Humans Society at large embrace sustainability humans and the environment have a viable
future
Society and Humans Society sustainable and resilient they can thrive for the next seven generations
solutions
Society and Humans Society have sustainable sources of they have a better quality of life
shelter, water, and energy
Society and Humans Humanity a clean environment it does not cease to exist
Appendix 46
Society and Humans Taxpayers understand implications of they support investment in sustainable
not investing in sustainable infrastructure
infrastructure
Society and Humans Society future/new technologies they develop resilient and sustainable
infrastructure for the future
Society and Humans Society understand the impact of CE on we can elevate the industry and profession
the quality of life
Society and Humans Society and public officials Be educated about sustainability Long-term, resilient infrastructure planning is
supported
Society and Humans Influencers and the public have the right information appropriate, sustainable decisions are made
about investments and policy in infrastructure
Society and Humans Society value/appreciate the problems they will support investment
of today and tomorrow
Society and Humans General public live in sustainable cities we can exist in an equitable society
Society and Humans Society (beneficiaries) embrace sustainable the needs of a changing world are addressed
development concepts and and people flourish
practices
Society and Humans Community leaders find / provide funding to support society's needs are fully met
use of future technology
Society and Humans Society understand, appreciate, and civil and environmental engineers can
assign a higher value on civil continue to offer sustainable solutions for
and environmental engineering future generations
contributions
Students Students study emerging area (data they can design resilient and sustainable
science, machine learning, infrastructure
strategic communities,
automated design, systems
engineering...)
Students Students Need to build portfolios of they can bring systems thinking to current and
experiences and knowledge future societal challenges
inside and outside the classroom
Students Students use personalized learning tools they can engage in continuous learning after
graduation
Students Prospective students, including recognize the value of a BSCE we attract diversity to programs and have
those interested in other degree as a foundation for any people educated in CE in all different types
professions career path of careers
Students Students Develop power skills and They can design infrastructure relevant to
people focus society
Students CE students more integrated curriculum they can tackle problems of the 21st century
Students Engineering Students the ability to incorporate new designs are resilient, adaptive, sustainable, and
things innovative
Students Inadequately prepared students access to bridge education they can be successful in CE education and
careers
Students Entering "underprepared" and do not need calculus they can still study engineering because they
underserved students have that "spark" but not privileged school
systems
Students Civil engineering students have the attitudes, values, drives, they can identify and respond to future
disposition, optimism, and challenges
innovative spirit
Students Students be empowered to innovate they can adopt and be creative to meet
unknown challenges
Students Students develop necessary foundational they can develop innovative modern design in
skills topic areas of need
Students Students have more participation in the they can build a career path that meets their
development of their curriculum unique skillsets—bioandCivil engineering
Appendix 47
Students Students curriculum advancements they can protect the environment
Students URM students need to have a welcoming, future CEs can more effectively address
supportive environment diverse societal needs
Students CE Students think globally they can be prepared to solve problems
Students CE students be exposed to a broad they can innovate to solve tomorrow's
educational experience problems
Students CE students have inclusive perspective needs of stakeholders can be served
equitably
Students Students power skills can be leaders

Students CE students more education and practine in they are prepared to deal with ethical
identifying and acting on their dilemmas
values
Students Recent CEE graduates understand regulatory process influence public policy decisions
and constraints
Students CE undergrad students develop digital computer skills they can be prepared for future
interdisciplinary engineering challenges
Students Underprivileged students mentoring and financial aid they are successful at school and work
Students CE students have knowledge, skills, they can effectively respond to future
experiences, attitudes, and tools challenges
Students Students Develop foundational skills they can develop innovative modern design in
topic areas of need
Students Non-traditional and under- flexible educational pathways they can access education and flourish in their
represented students careers
Students Prospective students, including recognize the value of a CE BS we can attract diversity and have influence in
those interested in other as an educational foundation for all aspects of society
professions any career path
Students Future problem-solving have systems thinking they can consider societal needs in
professionals knowledge sustainable infrastructure
Students Students learn power skills they effectively collaborate and communicate
their ideas to their team and a variety of
audiences.
Students Students take ownership of their they can attain an independent and
education sustainable lifestyle
Students Undergraduate students be trained in the fundamentals they have the background needed to succeed
in their chosen specialty
Students Students develop technical and power they are prepared to solve problems of the
skills future
Students Students an attitude and value system enables them to efficiently serve society
Students Learners continuously seek new new technologies are brought into the
knowledge practice
Students Engineering students have intuition and social they can have critical conversations
consciousness
Students High school students be prepared with the they know what skills they should learn as a
fundamental concept of civil qualified engineer
engineering
Students CE students develop a growth mindset they can engage in lifelong learning
Students Undergraduate and graduate have flexibel curriculum (i.e., they can manage change (e.g., climate change,
students not over-constrained by ABET demographics, and materials)
or faculty interia or institutionel
hurdles
Students CE undergrad students create large-scale physical have a deeper understanding of fundamental
models along with classic concepts
calculations
Appendix 48
Students New minds motivated and inspired we have a diverse, engaged future civil
engineering workforce
Students Students mature they don't waste resources
Universities Universities/colleges form consortia emerging topics can be team taught with
holographic participation
Universities University administrators Need to be open to change New curricular approaches are encouraged
and provide support (financial,
administrative, structural)
Universities Universities develop a culture of equity and we produce a better prepared diverse
inclusion workforce
Universities Institutions reward faculty for acquiring new they will expend the effort to improve their
skills knowledge base
Universities Administrations establish incentives faculty can conduct transdiclipanary projects
Universities Universities reorganize and reincentivize interdisciplinary collaboration will prosper
Universities Universiites create faculty positions student needs for teaching and research are
met
Appendix 49
Appendix B
Bibliography
ASCE (1995) “Summary Report: 1995 Civil Engineering Education Conference (CEEC ’95).” American Society of Civil
Engineers, Denver, CO, June 8-11, 1995.
ASCE (2019) “Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge: Preparing the Future Civil Engineer,” 3rd Edition, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2019.
ASCE (2006) “The Vision for Civil Engineering in 2025,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2006.
ASEE (1955) “Summary of the Report on Evaluation of Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education,
American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, September 1955, pp. 25-60.
NAE (2005) “Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century.” National Academy
of Engineering, Washington, DC, 2005, pp. 1-5.
MIT (2018) “The Global State of the Art of Engineering Education.” Graham, Ruth, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, 2018, pp. ii-iv.
Appendix 50
ASCE Education Summit:

Mapping the Future of Civil Engineering Education
May 28-30, 2019

Dallas, Texas
Southern Methodist University
www.smu.edu
www.smu.edu/madi
Appendix 51

Mapping The Future of Civil Engineering Education PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapping The Future of Civil Engineering Education PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapping The Future of Civil Engineering Education PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 99.107.135.238 on 09/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Kevin D. Hall, Ph.D., P.E.

Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483251.

Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Manufactured in the United States of America.

May 28-30, 2019 | Dallas, Texas

Sponsored by the Committee on Education

Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas

Summit Program Committee Co-Chairs:

Summit Organization Committee Chair:

ASCE Committee on Education Chair:

ASCE Department Heads Coordinating Council Chair:

Connecting the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Conceiving the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Constructing the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1. “An insistence upon the development of a high

represent a major theme of the event. At least four (4) of

Jerry Buckwalter | ASCE

Sarah Christian | Carnegie Mellon University

David A. Dzombak | Carnegie Mellon University

Clifton Farnsworth | Brigham Young University

Ken Fridley | University of Alabama

K. N. Gunalan | ASCE 2019 President-Elect

Kevin Hall | University of Arkansas

Marc Hoit | North Carolina State University

Daniel Linzell | University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Chris Luebkeman | ARUP Foresight

Jerome P. Lynch | University of Michigan

Barbara E. Minsker | Southern Methodist University

Rebekah Oulton | California Polytechnic

Yvette E. Pearson | Rice University

Mike Penn | University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Angel “Ari” Perez | Quinnipiac University

John Schemmel | Texas State University

Lucio Soibelman | University of Southern California

Brett Story | Southern Methodist University

Alison Wood | Olin College of Engineering

Connecting the Future 11

• Increasing significance of oral communication on Accreditation Operations and an ABET Engineering

Connecting the Future 12

Connecting the Future 13

The Decades in Review

Connecting the Future 14

continuing education, mentoring, and work-

Connecting the Future 15

The State of the Profession

Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Yvette E. Pearson, Rice University

Connecting the Future 16

and climate, practice inclusive teaching, be transparent,

Connecting the Future 17

Audra Morse, Michigan Technological University

Connecting the Future 18

related to ASCE Future World Vision

MINI “TED” TALKS

Conceiving the Future 19

ASCE Future World Vision

Conceiving the Future 20

MINI “TED” TALKS

Outside the Academy