JOURNAL O F CHEMICAL EDUCATION
0
THE SELF-EDUCATION OF THE YOUNG ENGINEERING TEACHERS LEWIS W. GLEEKMAN1 Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation, Wyandotte, Michigan
T H E Young Engineering Teachers have been actively engaged in a campaign of self-improvement in a formal fashion for the past four years. In 1949 Dean Freund, the President of the American Society for Engineering Education, appointed five members to organize a Committee for Young Engineering Teachers. Since their first meeting a t Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, during the A. S. E. E. Convention, the Committee, with its 'Formerly C h a i m n , Committee for Young Engineering Teachers of the American Society for Engineering Education, and Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Delaware.
current executive leadership of four and its 16 sectionaI sub-chaismen, has grown exponentially. The main reason for this growth is that the Committee is attempting-and doing a good job at it-to fulfill the wishes of those members of the A. S. E. E. who consider themselves young in age and young in teaching experience. The Committee operates, like the Society, on three levels: nationally via correspondence, reports, and sessions at the annual meetings; sectionally (it should be noted that the A. S. E. E. is. divided into 16 geographicals ections) via correspondence and conferences at the semiannual sectional.
AUGUST, 1953
meetings; and locally by means of seminars, conferences, classes, etc., varying from institution to institution. From the Rensselaer meeting came these words in 1949: "There appears to be a need in the Society [viz., the A. S. E. E.] for an organization in which the younger members of the engineering teaching profession can find assistance, expression, and responsibility in the advancement of themselves and the Society. A high percentage of the membership of the Society consists of teachers in the lower rank^."^ This editorial served as a report to the membership-at-large of the A. S. E. E. from the five men appointed by Dean Freund. Specific objectives of the Committee as envisioned by the organizing committee were to provide young- engineering - teachers with: (1) An understanding of the general goals and responsibilities of the dual professions of engineering and education. (2) Orientation into the history and "unwritten laws" of the
profession of engineering education. (3) Guidance in their personal professional development. (4) Acquaintanoe with the most effective instructional materials and methods, with methods of evaluating student achievement, and with the elements of counselling and ~tudenteuidance. (5) A means of exchanging ideas with their contemporaries. (6) Stimulation. (7) Dimemination of professional ethics.
-
The Committee discarded its diapers and put on rompers at the 1950 annual meeting of the Society a t the University of Washington. Here it held a business meeting and then a technical conference with approximately 15 members in attendance. At this conference session three papers were presented, two being by young men who were then assistant professors. The 15 men present constituted themselves the Executive Committee, elected a Chairman and drew up a plan of action for the year 1950-51. The main formal activity of the Committee following the 1950 meeting consisted of building interest nationally in connection with the Committee's program. This was done by a questionnaire set to every engineering school. Like many questionnaires, only a small number of answers were received, namely 25, ranging from laconic one-word replies to verbose three-page discussions. Sectional activities were nonexistent in this period. At least two local activities, unsponsored by the Committee hut fitting firmly in its program, took place-a series of seminars a t New York University directed at improving teaching in engineering, and a course in the fundamentals of teaching presented to the younger staff members of the College of Engineering at the State University of Iowa. In 1951 the Committee for Young Engineering Teachers broke into print three times a t the annual meeting at Michigan State College. Of prime interest was a luncheon the Committee sponsored where an audience of about 50 participated vigorously in a discussion of "The Road to Advancement -Teachimp us. Research 2 SCHWAETZ, F. L., "Young Engineering Teachers, an editorial," J. Eng. Educ., 40,407 (1950).
417
us. Advanced Degrees us. Industrial Experience." I n addition to this activity the Committee participated in joint technical sessions with the Committee on Improvement of Teaching and also with the Committee on Teaching Aids. The 1951-52 school year saw the Committee in long pants, operating on all three levels. Two progress reports were issued by the author and distributed to all engineering schools. In approximately half of the 16 sections, the Committee had an active voice in one or more sessions of the section's meetings. This mainly took the form of round table discussions or papers by younger members. In one section it was reported that though the session held by the Committee was one of six technical sessions held simultaneously, it had by far the largest attendance of all sessions. On the local basis, at least 12 schools reported activities ranging from monthly seminars to guest lectures. The culmination of the 1951-52 year came a t the annual meeting at Dartmouth College where all seven ohjectives of the Committee were dealt with. The Committee held a picnic dinner, complete with "bullsession," a luncheon and business meeting, a joint technical session with the Committee for the Improvement of Teaching, and a technical conference where four Committee members presented papers. The Committee thus gave the young engineering teacher present at the meeting a center for his activities-a locus for his interests to prevent his getting lost among a group of persons well known t o one another hut, in many cases, unknown to and distant from the young mau. How young is young? That question has plagued the Committee since its inception. It has been resolved in keeping with the famous adage, a man is as young as he feels. Thus, there are no age or rank restrictions to membership or participation in the Committee. However, it was the feeling a t Dartmouth that the leadership of the Committee should rest in the hands of those who are either below the rank of full professor or below the age of 38 hut no formal bylaw exists to that effect. Where will the Committee go in 1952-53? Under the able leadership of Professor Roger Sampson of the University of Florida a "call to stations" has been sent to all 16 sectional sub-chairmen. Professor Sampson now has a vice-chairman for local activities and a vicechairman for sectional activities, both able men with splendid records of accomplishment in the Committee's work. This year the Society itself is giving great impetus to the Committee by sponsoring a prize-paper contest for young engineering teachers with a first prize of $300 and a second prize of $200. The words of Professor Sampson in his letter to the sectional sub-chairmen indicate the progress to he expected of the Committee this year: "The existence of the Committee is justified primarily as a means for individual young engineering teachers to find assistance, expression, and responsibility in the advancement of themselves as individuals and of their profession as a whole."
