YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Civil Engineering Education
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Civil Engineering Education
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Alignment of Civil Engineering Programs with the ASCE Body of Knowledge

    Source: Journal of Civil Engineering Education:;2023:;Volume ( 149 ):;issue: 004::page 04023006-1
    Author:
    Matthew K. Swenty
    ,
    Brian J. Swenty
    DOI: 10.1061/JCEECD.EIENG-1948
    Publisher: ASCE
    Abstract: The American Society of Civil Engineer’s Body of Knowledge versions 2 and 3 (BOK2 and BOK3) explicitly describe the knowledge expected in each category (outcome) of those entering the civil engineering profession. The goal of this study was to determine the extent that the BOK2 and BOK3 outcomes align with undergraduate civil engineering program content. Data were gathered from a representative sample of civil engineering program curriculums in the 2017–2018 academic year and mapped to the BOK2 and BOK3 outcomes using three different methods. The results reveal the average civil engineering program has dedicated, required courses that cover 67% of the BOK2 and 69% of the BOK3 outcomes. When including elective and survey courses that cover multiple outcomes, coverage increased to 95% of the BOK2 outcomes and 91% of the BOK3 outcomes. About 31% of the programs met all of the BOK2 outcomes and 6% met the BOK3 outcomes. Civil engineering programs offer courses that cover the majority of the BOK2 and BOK3 outcomes, but because of the flexibility in curriculums, some programs cover as few as 75% of the outcomes. Outcomes that were most often not met include mathematics (numerical methods), sustainability, business and public administration, globalization, and engineering economics. As undergraduate programs continue to evolve, undergraduate program administrators should consider mapping their required and elective course offerings to the BOK3 outcomes. Based on the results of this study, most programs cover the majority of the outcomes, but still have gaps in coverage. A comparison of BOK3 outcomes using Method 2 and Method 3 in this study would help identify program content that may be missing and overlooked in undergraduate programs.
    • Download: (1.522Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Alignment of Civil Engineering Programs with the ASCE Body of Knowledge

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4293406
    Collections
    • Journal of Civil Engineering Education

    Show full item record

    contributor authorMatthew K. Swenty
    contributor authorBrian J. Swenty
    date accessioned2023-11-27T23:14:32Z
    date available2023-11-27T23:14:32Z
    date issued7/3/2023 12:00:00 AM
    date issued2023-07-03
    identifier otherJCEECD.EIENG-1948.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4293406
    description abstractThe American Society of Civil Engineer’s Body of Knowledge versions 2 and 3 (BOK2 and BOK3) explicitly describe the knowledge expected in each category (outcome) of those entering the civil engineering profession. The goal of this study was to determine the extent that the BOK2 and BOK3 outcomes align with undergraduate civil engineering program content. Data were gathered from a representative sample of civil engineering program curriculums in the 2017–2018 academic year and mapped to the BOK2 and BOK3 outcomes using three different methods. The results reveal the average civil engineering program has dedicated, required courses that cover 67% of the BOK2 and 69% of the BOK3 outcomes. When including elective and survey courses that cover multiple outcomes, coverage increased to 95% of the BOK2 outcomes and 91% of the BOK3 outcomes. About 31% of the programs met all of the BOK2 outcomes and 6% met the BOK3 outcomes. Civil engineering programs offer courses that cover the majority of the BOK2 and BOK3 outcomes, but because of the flexibility in curriculums, some programs cover as few as 75% of the outcomes. Outcomes that were most often not met include mathematics (numerical methods), sustainability, business and public administration, globalization, and engineering economics. As undergraduate programs continue to evolve, undergraduate program administrators should consider mapping their required and elective course offerings to the BOK3 outcomes. Based on the results of this study, most programs cover the majority of the outcomes, but still have gaps in coverage. A comparison of BOK3 outcomes using Method 2 and Method 3 in this study would help identify program content that may be missing and overlooked in undergraduate programs.
    publisherASCE
    titleAlignment of Civil Engineering Programs with the ASCE Body of Knowledge
    typeJournal Article
    journal volume149
    journal issue4
    journal titleJournal of Civil Engineering Education
    identifier doi10.1061/JCEECD.EIENG-1948
    journal fristpage04023006-1
    journal lastpage04023006-9
    page9
    treeJournal of Civil Engineering Education:;2023:;Volume ( 149 ):;issue: 004
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian