Prof. Ir. G. H. A. van Eyk,
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
3. THREE APPROACHES TO CURRICULUM PLANNING AND LEARNING OBJECTIVES
   1. The classical or systematic approach
   2. The romantic or humanistic approach
   3. The classical-romantic or 'modern' approach
4. OUR OBJECTIVES
   1. The General Educational Objective. (BOX 1)
   2. The Specific Educational Objective - Part One (BOX 2)
   3. The Specific Educational Objective - Part Two. (BOX 3)
   4. The Objectives of each Course Year. (BOX 4)
   5. The Objectives of the Design Courses. (BOX 5)
5. OUR CURRICULUM MODEL
6. HOW MUCH OF A CONTRIBUTORY SUBJECT IS SUFFICIENT?
7. SUMMARY
8. CONCLUSION
9. FOOTNOTES
10. REFERENCES
11. ABOUT THE AUTHOR

1. INTRODUCTION
The recent discussion (1) criticizing the usual engineering curricula for neglecting design and snuffing out the creative skills of the engineering student, now seems to become a more than just ritualistic comment on the education of engineers which we have heard regularly during the last decades, but with no substantial change occurring. Recently, several initiatives from engineering schools, all over Western Europe, to change their curricula for the better seem to be taken, including an initiative to found a new type of 'engineering' school, in France (2). The new engineering schools in Delft, the Netherlands, and Compiègne, France, founded to create an 'ingénieur-designer' have to be considered as isolated 'early birds' that were, most probably, not aware of the movement that now appears to be emerging. The confusion between science and technology, as if the first is 'pure' and the second 'applied pureness', as if relating as God and a Mortal, seems to be bypassed (3) and a 'respectable' science of design has emerged in the last decades, opening the way for a 'truly academic' study of engineering fundamentals.

In the 1920s and 30s, engineering education no longer had the social status generated by the great engineers of the late 19th century. There came a call for a reform to reinforce the prestige and quality of engineering courses. In 1930, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology warned that "training in details has been unduly emphasised at the expense of the more powerful training in all-embracing fundamental principles" (4). In France, in 1935, even more disapprobatory voices were heard about engineering education: "it isn't observation, it isn't personal reflection, it isn't science, the true and pure science with its intellectual disciplines, it is a thin varnish of mathematics, physics or chemics, easy to teach, easy to learn, easy to justify in an examination; it is a miscellany of recipes and formulas not worth the name of empirism . . . (5).

The remedy, proposed a generation ago, was to make engineering education 'more scientific'. On reflection, that is not so much of a surprise. The prestige of physics and mathematics was at that time -academically speaking - very high. Just consider names such as Bohr, Einstein, Von Kármán, Lorentz, Curie, Ehrenfest, Pauli or Kamerling Onnes. But now - as Simon writes - "engineering schools have become schools of physics and mathematics" (6). With the further popularisation of scientific achievements, after the second world war, even the remainders of design education were purged from the engineering curricula. 'Applied science' was a label that was often used, but science-to-engineering relationships were ambivalent. The analytic approach of the scientist, rewarding in many ways, left the engineering student, striving for synthesis and integration, with an emptiness. Engineering had lost its identity; its confusion with science started.

Synthesis of the elements of various scientific disciplines and the integration of the scientific achievements and 'Inventions' into the lives of human beings was no longer taught (7). Such essentials just happened in odd periods of practical working within a company during academic holidays. These periods were increasingly neglected and finally abandoned due to lack of academic prestige and because of the inability of the educationalists to stipulate 'truly academic' learning objectives for integrative courses (Page). Now, in a search for engineering curricula so as to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship, Petty observes that "many engineering faculty believe that creativity and innovation can be taught in exactly the same way that 'design' can be taught". These are, simply, the 'situational conditions' arising from recent demand for truly integrated engineering courses and for more design skills.

The School for Industrial Design Engineering at the University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, being one of the 'early birds', has been a pioneer in the field of integrating technical and non-technical study subjects since its foundation in 1969. Valuable experience had been obtained with small groups of students in the early years of the School, when personal contacts between students and the staff - and most of all between staff - were most helpful in smoothing out flaws in the educational concept. The later years, however, have witnessed a rapid growth from 50 to 160 first year students which inexorably disclosed the conceptual flaws hidden so far. How could we maintain our ideals of integration, that were often soft and intuitive, in the severe bureaucratie conditions, engendered by increase of new staff and many more students, while formal contacts were gradually substituting the rich informal contacts of the past. This process, however, purified our intentions of the early days and brought us - in combination with the prevailing budget restrictions - closer to the core of our desired objectives. We did not discover the final answer to all these problems, but we succeeded in formulating - more precisely - what we were after and what were - also more preciseiy - the hidden traps. These experiences have been presented in French only (van Eyk, 1982a). This present article, therefore, makes such knowledge available to a broader audience.
back to index

2. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
In the relation between engineering and design in education three mainstreams (8) can now be distinguished, namely: Industrial Design with a close relationship to art and an explicit care for wholeness. This mainstream is, often, wrongly judged as non-technical and/or 'cosmetic' only. Because of such prejudices, most 'academic' engineers fail to grasp the importance of this approach for their discipline.

The second mainstream relates engineering and design in a pure technical sense. The function of the product, to be designed, is given as a starting point. Here designing means creative and intricate manipulation of the laws of physics, knowledge of components and manufacturing techniques, as to find optional solutions - economic or otherwise - for the function. In engineering education the teaching of design is often - but wrongly so - confused with (analytic) scientific research and the skills for conducting scientific experiments. This confusion leads to neglection of the heuristic and integrative aspects of design methodology and, in consequence, impedes adequate teaching of design.

Finally, the two 'early birds' mentioned in the introduction, can be considered as a third mainstream that takes an in-between position. Rooted firmly in the engineering science it also includes a broad look at the man/product relationships, not only in their strictly ergonomic sense but also including societal and cultural aspects. The design activity in this stream does not start only with a given function, it also includes the definition of the human or societal need. (9).
back to index

3. THREE APPROACHES TO CURRICULUM PLANNING AND LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Whatever way the design aspects of an engineering course are conceived, it must be made clear that any engineering course must teach integrative skills in addition to analytical skills. When planning an integrative course, however, there appear to be alternative approaches in curriculum planning. Some are more and some are less friendly to complex educational objectives like 'Integrative Skill'. In particular there is one group of approaches, highly attractive to the technical mind, which drives the 'objectives-and-means' analysis so far that the objective of integration may easily slip through one's fingers. According to Davies three broad perspectives can be distinguished, that reflect developing educational thought in this century:

The classical or systematic approach. The efficiency of the teaching process is primordial. Clear and precise objectives, formulated in measurable behaviour, are the only starting point for curriculum planning. The Tyler-rationale (Tyler) can be summarized in four questions:

• 'What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?'
• 'What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?'
• 'How can these educational experiences be effectively organised?'.
• 'How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?'

The romantic or humanistic approach represents an appeal for freedom rather than efficiency. Educational technology is considered to be 'dehumanizing'. The student is seen as a fully functioning person (Maslow) with a positive image of self, open to experiences and able to relate to other people. 'Freedom to Learn' (Rogers) works out an authentic concept of this approach. The essential feature of the romantic perspective is that the learner is the source of the curriculum, and the ultimate objective is the realization of human growth or potential through the process of self-actualization.

The classical-romantic or 'modern' approach. This approach is not a simple amalgam of the classical and romantic points of view for its assumptions are quite different. In its purest form, it assumes that the students are natural decision-makers and problem solvers. Appropiateness, rather than 'either-or' thinking is a key concept. An investigative attitude, and learning from experience, are highly valued and a pragmatic or problem-oriented view is the starting point for the curriculum. The role of learning objectives is relativised. Such a view, of course, destroys the essential polarity of the classical and romantic points of view. One sees clearly that the more complex educational objectives could easily slip through one's fingers. Charity James distinguishes only three kinds of enterprise in which students should be engaged. These involve enquiry (exploration, experiment, explanation), making (inventing, designing, maintaining, doing), and dialogue (with material, objects, creatures, persons, self).

De Groot, who distinguished learning oblectives and results that can be tested from those that can be reported or communicated in learner's reports, can also be seen as an exemple of this approach (van Eyk, 1982c). This third approach has been used dominantly in our curriculum planning, although, in a culture of technocrats, glimpses of the first approach may well be spotted in the final result.
back to index

4. OUR OBJECTIVES
Several years after the foundation of our School, namely between 1977 and 1978, we have reformulated our objectives more operationally and coherently than before, thus following the first approach. We have gone as far as making a projection of 'the young engineer' in the General Educational Objective (BOX 1). However, at the same time, we did not hesitate to describe quite complex skills, such as 'will be able to manage and supervise', that would surely introduce difficulties for measuring objectively. The rationale of this approach was that these statements were clear for both staff and the students, who, through an elected board, had the final deciding power. We agreed on a projected image of a young industrial designer - and on a description - apparently reflecting exactly what we expected our alumni to do.

This approach is also followed in the first part of the Specific Educational Objective (Box 2) where our beliefs about the four important fields of knowledge are expounded. This, by itself, yields nothing new. Design courses always claim a broad education. In this case, however, we tried to specify more precisely with what knowledge and skill (and how much of it) we believed to satisfy the general objective. This is expressed in the first and last paragraph. The problem, after all, is contained within the integration: Every seasoned design teacher knows that disciplines, taught in isolation, are in danger of not being used adequately by the student during design exercises. Careful planning to have the isolated disciplines preceeding the relevant design exercise - as we practiced - is not enough to solve the problem. Motivation for isolated disciplines often comes only during the design exercise, under which circumstances it can even deteriorate the wholeness of the design as the student becomes fascinated by discovering that the new aspect is 'crucial'. This approach (of first getting the smell of a subject in a broader context and then studying it more academically) still has its merits by challenging students to study contributory disciplines with more motivation, understanding and satisfaction. The School of Architecture of our university follows this line in the large. We preferred a more equal and controlled balance of the envisaged fields of knowledge. Our option, however, also reflects the received belief that theory should preceed practice, which is only a half-truth and quite a dangerous one in engineering education when driven too far. (10)

How could we maintain our integration objective and, at the same time, answer the question: "What subjects should be taught and how much of them more precisely?". We found a solution in a formulation that is quite operable. It enumerates the skills of introducing, handling, evaluating and taking into account certain knowledge during the final decision making, but, at the same time, it refers to such complex situations as 'the individuat and group design process'. Again, we considered that formulation 'adequate' and 'appropriate': Clear enough as a target for our School while avoiding that our real targets would slip through our fingers by relying on 'strictly measurable' behaviour only. (11)

The second part of the Specific Educational Objective (BOX 3) had to be designed because faculty was still in doubt about the 'truly academic character' of a course aiming 'only' at performance in the first months or years after education. 'Truly academic', as an objective, would leave the door dangerously open for contributory disciplines that strived for academic prestige only, while, at the same time, losing touch with the design discipline. This would damage our real mission: Integration into the design process. We solved the problem by recognizing the objectives of part one (BOX 2) as skills for 'using tools', but at the same time we recognized the lack of skills necessary for 'renewing tools', which we also expected from a professional designer. Part two (BOX 3) should specify these lacking skills. We substantiated our doubt about the 'truly academic character' and found a solution by referring to the young engineer as being "capable of taking full responsibility for his own learning process as a professional engineer", requiring "Insight in the theoretical and philosophical basic principles" of the various contributory subjects and "self-knowledge". This concept reflects Maslow's 'fully functioning person', which is hardly a testable proposition. However, in regarding the teachability of (or responsibility for) one's own learning process, some progress has been made. (van Eyk, 1982b, 1982c).

5. OUR CURRICULUM MODEL
As mentioned above, we preferred the model of a balanced and controlled integration of the subjects taught before the integrative courses. The model is like a large river that broadens and deepens. Year after year new subjects are added to increase the width and the depth of the design exercises. (Figure l). The objectives of each year and those of the design exercises run in parallel. (BOX 4 and BOX 5). This approach has two serious difficulties. How did we cope with them?

1. The first difficulty. The approach suggests (to the student, but also to staff) that all you need to embark on a design exercise are the subjects taught earlier. Any design exercise makes clear, however, that this surmise is not valid. One needs much pre-reflective knowledge on many subjects that must be mobilised to generate a 'complete' design. Requiring (crucial) knowledge of un-taught subjects, however, is hardly acceptable in a subculture believing that theory should always preceed practice. As a consequence of this belief, most 'academic' engineering curricula tend to delay their design courses until the later years after 'everything' has been taught. For the student however, the move to integration becomes, then, even more difficult. He considers - and rightly so - the elementary exercises aiming at integration far too naïve, not challenging anymore and not at a par with his acquired sophisticated knowledge of contributory subjects. This often leads to the removal of design from engineering curricula altogether. 'Design' is then limited to the critical analysis of other person's artefacts, or to engineering problem solving.

This approach also 'prohibits' design exercises in the first year: 'nothing' has been taught yet. Nevertheless, it is by neglecting this 'prohibition' that we solved the problem. In the first year - more precisely in the first semester - the design course is based on 'naïve or pre-reflective knowledge' which is everything a young person of eighteen or twenty years old with a grammar school certificate, and some bias for technology, 'knows'. With these 'naïve' ingredients the student learns/experiences the wholeness of the design process and obtains some degree of feeling for 'method'. He experiences how it is to design individually or in a group and what it means when a real object or a model has to be made following all the abstract concepts and discussions. He also experiences the fascination of engineering problem solving, which is part of the exercises. Only in later years, after more formal courses in various subjects and 'methods', is he required to integrate the subjects to result in a much higher standard of design sophistication.

2. The second difficulty, of the chosen approach, is the integration of subjects after they have been taught. There are two traps. On one hand the new subject tends to dominate the design exercise, thus reducing the integrative exercise to, e.g., ergonomic problem solving or to a management exercise. On the other hand the new subject is not used at all and the student seems to persist in the pre-reflective and naïve approach of the first semester, not achieving the higher standards now possible.

These traps are avoided primarily by the coaching of the design staff. For that very reason the various staffs comprise not only generalists but also specialists having a major responsibility and a background in one of the contributory subjects. This, however, has proved to be not enough. To keep the design exercises truly integrative, students have also to go through specific application courses on each subject. (Figure l). This matures the student's knowledge of the subject in the context of a design assignment thus avoiding the traps of negligence or dominance. We are willing to accept a certain accentuation of a design exercise by contributory subjects, but dominance is unacceptable.

'An integrative course', it is easy to say so. Any lecturer, however, who has tried it as a university course, knows of its inherent difficulties and obstacles. Integrative courses in universities, therefore, don't last long if there isn't explicit pressure from professional practice, as with, e.g., medical doctors or clinical psychologists. Integrative university curricula, too often, tend to fragment into isolated subjects "easy to teach, easy to learn, easy to justify in an examination" Every now and then, there is an effort to re-establish the integration. I believe such an effort is emerging in engineering curricula, not surprisingly coincidentally with the lasting recession. (12)

We in our School have not found the final solution for this problem. We only know several hidden traps. We believe that there are, after all, only two cures:

1. Specify the educational objectives - including those for integration - operationally and coherently to resist the incessant erosion caused by a drive for perfectly measurabie elementary objectives, cherished so much by analytic and bureaucratie minds.
2. Be aware that there is no rigid formulae to counteract the anti-integrative tendency in our universities. Its origins are too deeply rooted in our bureaucratic, educational and academic culture.

In small schools integrative courses do not seem to offer problems as long as some key lecturers maintain their own integrative spirit. In larger schools, in particular where the rational behaviour of students trying to 'pass exams' rather than 'learning, (13) adds to the existing problems, it is much harder to keep the integrative spirit. Clear objectives are the best support for maintaining that spirit.

6. HOW MUCH OF A CONTRIBUTORY SUBJECT IS SUFFICIENT?
Finally, another specific theme, in relation to integrative courses, has to be mentioned. We call it the theme of the 'qualified partner' (French: 'Interlocuteur valable') but its scope is much wider than expected. It starts with the conception that an industrial designer, or an engineering designer, should be equipped with knowledge of non-technical subjects or technical subjects foreign to his own specialisation in engineering.
Moreover, he is expected to integrate these subjects in his project whether he works as an individual or in a team. The question is, again:
What subjects should be taught and how much of each of them more precisely? This time we will look at the objectives of the contributory subjects. It is easy to call in a specialist to give students 'a certain base'. But do courses such as 'The Principles of Ergonomics' or 'Introduction to Sociology' or 'Advanced Mathematics' give students the required base? The answer is, definitely, no! They don't and, moreover, one risks impairing the integrative course. What is, then, the problem?

We require an engineer (designer) to be able to cooperate with any discipline he may need - whether technical or non-technical - to complete his design project. What does this mean to the formulation of the objectives of the specialized courses on contributory subjects?

Ideally, a designer:

1. is aware of the existence of such a specialism and its possible contribution to the design,
2. can decide whether to engage external help or to proceed on a 'do-it-yourself' basis, when needing a particular specialism in a given situation,
3. knows how to engage, to continue and effectively to finalize cooperation with various specialists, which means that the designer should be a 'qualified partner' to the specialists.

This requires - apart from certain social skills - a specific knowledge of a specialism: Enough to be considered as a 'qualified partner' and to be able to ask appropriate questions. Too much knowledge, however, is neither efficient nor effective and hampers the creation of a challenging climate.

These three considerations help to find rational objectives for the subjects the school chooses to teach. For the non-taught subjects, young engineers should at least be equipped with certain 'rules' about how to prepare themselves in case of necessity. After alt, not only do we expect a designer to integrate knowledge that has been taught, but also anything else he comes across - or will be confronted with - that might improve his design.

It is however, very hard to find specialist staff able to teach this specific knowledge, while courses by non-specialists - e.g. designers - may lack sophistication and actuality. Too often specialists only teach the principles and methods of their discipline, or concentrate on sophisticated details, too vaguely, or not at all, related to the design problem. The application to the design process, under these circumstances, is left completely as the responsibility of the student.

After some time the school discovers that students are no longer interested in the subject, and, in my opinion, rightly so. Engineering students, after all, do not follow these specialised courses for 'general cultural education'. They will lose interest because their real problem is neglected and annihilated. The next step in this scenario will be more general complaints about the 'non-effectivity' of this specialism in the integrative design course. Depending on the 'social status' of the subject (14) within the engineering culture, the complaints will be dealt with by one of the following reactions:

1. The subject is eliminated for 'lack of significance' or,
2. the subject is apportioned a larger share of time whereas the specialist doesn't change his teaching habits. In both cases, the integrative course, as a whole, is impaired.

It would seem that there is only one effective way to answer the question: 'What shall be taught and how much of it more precisely?', which is that the specialist teacher also personally participates in the design course as a staff member, to coach the students with applying and integrating his speciality. That is the best schooling for any specialist who really wants his subject to contribute to the design. It is also a most difficult task, but, as we have observed, it is very stimulating and rewarding for specialists-teachers. I have found, as have several colleagues, new challenges in my own specialism new and - again and again - fresh aspects in that specialism appear in the real world.

With teacher-specialists included on the design staff, students gradually learn how to manage and exploit specialists, to their advantage, without letting them destroy the wholeness of their design and thus improving their skill as a 'qualified partner'. But the problem of the specialisms to be integrated in a design continues offering difficulties (15). It reflects, most probably, the real world situation. In that way, It stimulates learning beyond tangible learning objectives.
back to index

7. SUMMARY
In this article, an example is given of a set of objectives aiming at effective integration. Some thoughts are developed on how, and how much of, a contributory subject should be taught. The difficulties with integrative courses are manifold, but can be divided down into a few core problems. There is, first of all, much prejudice based on an academic tradition in engineering education as to what subjects should - or should not - be taught and how these should be taught. This tradition is unfriendly to integration. Further, there is the formulation of the objective of integration and the selection of an educational model, with the underlying difficulty that the various approaches to curriculum planning also merit integration differently. More precisely, the approach to curriculum planning, most popular in the engineering/science teaching subculture at universities, is, at the same time, most unfriendly to integration. Finally there is, also, the 'real world' observation that engineering curricula are not considered truly satisfactory anymore: The societal function of engineering education is at stake.
back to index

8. CONCLUSION
Is the emerging dissatisfaction, depicted in the introduction, preluding a more fundamental change in engineering curricula distinct from the more general university curricula? My personal belief is, that if such a change is forthcoming, then 'design' and 'integrative courses' are among the key words (16). It is from this perspective that I have written this article as a case of 'curriculum planning'. This perspective is even more plausibie, for, in the last decade, definite progress has been made into the nature of design, which is for many a scientist, wrongly so, just a soft and intuitive notion. Educationalists' concepts, also, have broadened so as to include more complex learning objectives. Evolving effective design curricula now seems feasibie. It is a challenge to get it working and, at 'the same time, to get away from the fragmented academic courses engineering is seen to suffer from.
back to index

9. FOOTNOTES
(1) The following events may illustrate the recent discussion: The International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), in Rome 1981, tried to reflect the state of the art in engineering design with the underlying notion that engineering design is very much neglected in engineering courses. "Industrial Design and the Training of Engineers", a seminar of the Société Européenne pour la Formation des Ingenieurs (SEFI), in Compiègne 1981, looked at industrial design education for new inspiration in engineering design and engineering courses (van Eyk, 1981). Most illustrative, however, is the SEFI Conference in Delft 1982. (Maring). This conference was titled "The Education of the Engineer for Innovative and Entrepreneurial Activity", with the underlying notion that engineering education, at present, was neither innovative nor entrepreneurial. The opening speech of Professor Olmer was entitied: "Comment tuer l'instinct d'innovation des étudiants?" (How to snuff out creativity?). This question was answered ironically and illustrated with examples from today's engineering education practice. See also (van Eyk, 1983). back to text

(2) The SEFI Conference in Delft, 1982, (Maring) also exhibited many hopeful initiatives for improving engineering courses. Also the foundation of a new type of engineering school was announced during the "Colloque National sur l'Enseignement de la Conception de Produits" in Paris. March 1982. This school, under the name of "Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Création Industrielle', has been started on November 8th, 1982. (Les Ateliers, 46-48, rue Saint-Sabin, 75011 Paris). back to text

(3) The correction of this misconception seems to emanate from many sources at the same time. See e.g. Hanson. back to text

(4) Karl Taylor Compton, in his presidential inaugural address at MIT, 1930: "I hope . . . that increasing attention in the Institute may be given to the fundamental sciences; that they may achieve as never before the spirit and the results of research; that all courses of instruction may be examined carefully to see where training in details has been unduly emphasized at the expense of more powerful training in all-embracing fundamental principles". Quoted by Simon, page 131.back to text

(5) "Ce qu'on utilise trop souvent pour faire des ingénieurs, parce que c'est le plus facile et que des professeurs livresques y suffisent, ce n'est pas l'observation, ce n'est pas la réflexion personnelle, ce n'est pas la science, la vraie, la pure science avec ses disciplines intellectuelles, c'est un mince vernis mathématique, physique ou chimique, facile donner, facile à recevoir, facile à justifier dans un examen; c'est un conglomérat de recettes et de formules qui ne vaut même pas l'empirisme, car l'empirisme suppose un bagage expérimental dont la valeur pratique est loin d'ètre négligeable. Comment l'esprit pourrait-il acquérir, par une nourriture intellectuelle aussi vide de substance, la méthode d'investigation qui est l'instrument indispensable de l'analyse et les vues d'ensemble qui constituent les fondements de l'esprit de synthèse?". Raoul Dautry, in a conference: "Que faire de nos 50 000 ingénieurs", in January 1935, quoted in "L'architecture d'ingénieurs, XIXe - XXe siècles", Centre de la Création lndustrielle (CCI), Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1978. back to text

(6) Simon, page 129/130: "In view of the key role of design in professional activity, it is ironic that in his century the natural sciences have almost driven the sciences of the artificial from professional school curricula. Engineering schools have become schools of physics and mathematics; medical schools have become schools of biological science; business schools have become schools of finite mathematics." back to text

(7) The call for the integration of engineering into the lives of human beings is not new. Von Queis quotes from sourees, from as early as 1910 of 'the German Architects' and Engineers' Association, reporting on succesful demands put upon the universities by the Association to increase the attention for non-technical subjects. back to text

(8) These three mainstreams became clear to me during a SEFI Seminar in, Compiègne, April 1982: "Industrial Design and the training of Engineers", a true meeting between industrial designers and engineering designers. (van Eyk, 1981). A representative of the latter group, however, questioned the organisers about the presence of these "artists" as "the problem was only to spot the genius and keep him for the engineering profession". He stated further that: "only 1 or 2% of the engineers were real designers. These top-line concept people are born rather than educated". back to text

(9) This distinction between usual engineering design and the approach of our School was suggested by Prof. J. Eekels during a private conversation in Delft, Dec 11th, 1982. back to text

(10) Page, pag 271.: "Through the pedagogical effects of careful coordination, the more rapidly maturing sandwich student by contrast with the fulltime student is afforded the invaluable opportunity of consciously recognizing the creative interaction between theory and practice in the totality of the educational experience". back to text

(11) The underlying notion is apparantly that a student studies for examination rather than for application or practice. See also footnote 13 (Karlsson). back to text

(12) If we look upon the present recession as a phase of a Kondratiev cycle, a shift from science to technology can be expected. (van Duijn). back to text

(13) Karlsson refers to a project - started in 1979 - at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm to study the examination game: ". . The most important course in engineering education cannot be found in any official document. (. . . ) And the student has to find the curriculum of that course himself. (. . .), When teachers and the official curricula mention the importance of creativity, context, practical use of knowledge etc., then examination tests, and often even instructions, transfer something completely different". back to text

(14) Mathematics, for exampie, ranks very high in the pecking order of subjects which leads to an overdose in most engineering curricula. This overdose, alas, does not necessarily mean that these engineering curricula contain sufficient, adequate or appropiate mathematics. Tradition, vague notions about 'mind training' and suitability for entrance and selection tests, usually score higher than 'appropiateness for the engineering profession' in the curriculum planning process. back to text

(15) Our teacher-specialists have, legally, a double task: Part-time as a researcher for the advancement of their (mono)discipline and part-time as a lecturer. The latter, however, in our School, cannot be enacted exclusively in mono-disciplinary courses. Teaching in multi-disciplinary courses, and in teams, is foreign to academic tradition and alien to bureaucratic standards. back to text

(16) "During a survey of engineering schools in Europe and the USA, it became apparent to the author that many engineering faculty believe that creativity and innovation can be taught in exactly the same way that 'design' can be taught. Indeed the area of design in engineering presents an ideal medium for the development of creative engineers" (Petty, pag 59). back to text
back to index

10. REFERENCES
Davies, I. K., Objectives in curriculum design, McGraw-Hill, London, 1976.
van Duijn, J. J., The long wave in economic life, George Allen end Unwin, London, 1983.
van Eyk 1981, G. H. A., A problem of communication, leadership or scholasticism?
Report on the SEFI Seminar 'Industrial Design and the Training of Engineers, Compiègne, France, April 1-3, 1981. Eindhoven, April 9th, 1981.
van Eyk 1982a, G. H. A., L'éducation de l'ingénieur-designer à Delft. Quelques faits et pensées. Lecture for the Colloque National sur l'Enseignement de la Conception de Produits en France, Paris, March 23-24, 1982a. An unpublished paper. (In French).
van Eyk 1982b, G. H. A., Can 'going solo' be taught? Delft, 1982b. In Maring (1982).
van Eyk 1982c, G. H. A., The writing of learning experiences as a teaching tool. Paper presented at the Design Policy Conference, Royal College of Art, London, July 1982c. Proceedings to be published in 1983.
van Eyk 1983, G. H. A., Design Opleiding Delft. KIO-Bulletin, January 1983. (In Dutch)
de Groot, A. D., To what purpose, to what effect? Some problems of method and theory in the evoluation of higher education. In: W.A. Verreck (ed), Methodological problems in research and development in higher education, Proceedings of the inaugural E.A.R.D.H.E.-Congress, Rotterdam, December 1973. Swets end Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, 1974, 16-44.
Hanson, D., The new alchemists, Little Brown end Company, Boston, 1982.
James, C., Young lives at stake, Collins, Londen, 1968.
Karlsson, G., Cuts in resources can give us a better engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education 7 (1982), 87-90.
Maring, K. J., and Brikkenaar van Dijk, A. M. (eds), The Education of the Engineer for Innovative and Entrepreneurial Activity. Proceedings of the 1982 Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education, Delft, The Netherlands, 23-25 June 1982. Delft University Press, Delft, 1982. Conference Edition.
Page, C.W. and King, M.C., New perspectives for sandwichcourses after twenty-five years, Delft, 1982. In Maring (1982), page 269.
Petty, E. R., Engineering curricula for encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship, Delft, 1982. In Maring (1982), page 59,
von Queis, Fachausbilding und Allgemeinbildung. Ein Wandel in Beruf und Ausbildung des Ingenieurs?, Delft, 1982, In Maring (1982), page 207. (In German)
Rogers, C., Freedom to learn, Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1969.
Simon, H. A., The sciences of the artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge 1981, 2nd edition.
Tyler, R., Basic principles of curriculum and instruction, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1949
back to index