currently and (we predict) in other countries in the near future. In the second paper 3 we described a variety of instructional methods that have been shown to improve student learning. In this part we consider the application of some of those methods to the development of the desired skills. Process skills are “soft” skills used in the application of knowledge. The degree to which students develop these skills determines how they solve problems, write reports, function in teams, self-assess and do performance reviews of others, go about learning new knowledge, and manage stress when they have to cope with change. Many instructors intuitively believe that process skills are important, but most are unaware of the fundamental research that provides a foundation for development of the skills. Their efforts to help their students develop the skills may consequently be less effective than they might wish. 4,5 Fostering the development of skills in students is challenging, to say the least. Process skills—which have to do with attitudes and values as much as knowledge—are particularly challenging in that they are hard to define explicitly, let alone to develop and assess. We might be able to sense that a team is not working well, for example, but how do we make that intuitive judgment quantitative? How might we provide feedback that is helpful to the team members? How can we develop our students’ confidence in their teamwork skills?

Deficiencies in engineering education have been exhaustively enumerated in recent years. Engineering schools and professors have been told by countless panels and blue-ribbon commissions and, in the United States, by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology that we must strengthen our coverage of fundamentals; teach more about “real-world” engineering design and operations, including quality management; cover more material in frontier areas of engineering; offer more and better instruction in both oral and written communication skills and teamwork skills; provide training in critical and creative thinking skills and problem-solving methods; produce graduates who are conversant with engineering ethics and the connections between technology and society; and reduce the number of hours in the engineering curriculum so that the average student can complete it in four years.

this paper we suggest options for answering most of these questions. We first proposeprinciples of instructional assessment and summarize common violations of these principles. Then weelaborate on how to assess the effectiveness of both teaching and educational scholarship, leaving theevaluation process (determining what qualifies as satisfactory performance) to be determined byinstitutional norms and values.

When we walk into an arbitrarily chosen engineering classroom in 2000, what do we see? Toooften the same thing we would have seen in 1970, or 1940. The professor stands at the front of the room,copying a derivation from his notes onto the board and repeating aloud what he writes. The students sitpassively, copying from the board, reading, working on homework from another class, or daydreaming. Once in a while the professor asks a question: the student in the front row who feels compelled to answeralmost every question may respond, and the others simply avoid eye contact with the professor until theawkward moment passes. At the end of the class students are assigned several problems that require themto do something similar to what the professor just did or simply to solve the derived formula for somevariable from given values of other variables. The next class is the same, and so is the next one, and the oneafter that.There are some differences from 30 years ago, of course. The homework assignments require theuse of calculators instead of slide rules, or possibly computers used as large calculators. The math is moresophisticated and graphical solution methods are not as likely to come up. The board is green or white ormaybe an overhead projector is used. Nevertheless, little evidence of anything that has appeared in articlesand conferences on engineering education in the past half-century can be found in most of our classroomsand textbooks. In recent years, however, there have been signs of change.

In the first paper in this series, we proposed that our goals as engineering educators should include equipping our students with problem-solving, communication, teamwork, self-assessment, change management and lifelong learning skills. These goals are consistent with ABET Engineering Criteria 2000,, a consideration of great importance in the United States currently and (we predict) in other countries in the near future. In the second paper, we described a variety of instructional methods that have been shown to improve student learning. In this part we consider the application of some of those methods to the development of the desired skills.

The instructional component of the mission of every educational institution is to produce graduates with satisfactory levels of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes may differ from one department to another and the definition of satisfactory may differ from one institution to another, but the instructional mission is invariant. In engineering, the basis of a department’s accreditation is the extent to which the department is fulfilling this mission. An instructor may be a brilliant lecturer with student ratings at the top of the charts, but if his or her teaching is not furthering the instructional mission of the department, that teaching cannot be considered effective.

AbstractWhat are the goals of education? We can teach people a lot, but if we do not teach them how to use what they know, we have fallen short of what we all have the potential of achieving.

AbstractLecturing is not a very effective way of teaching analytical skills. The methods that work better focus attention on the defining and development of these skills and then provide intelligent practice. A list of resources is provided.

This volume of New Directions for Teaching and Learnig addresses the problem of teaching problem solving. Each of the contributors to this volume believes that problem-solving skills can be taught, and in fact all have taught such skills successfully. Each contributor also believes that the process should be taught on purpose. You will also find a number of concrete suggestions in this volume that you can begin to apply in your own classes tomorrow. the results may come closer than our current efforts do to what we thought higher education was supposed to be about. This is the 30th issue of New Directions for Teaching and Learning. For more information on the series, please see the Journals and Periodicals page.