Industry standards change and and instructors can read up on the latest, but how can instructors, at trade schools, technical colleges, continue to be effective if they aren't able to have the industry experience?
Undergraduate engineering and technology schools are usually teaching theory, not practice, and many of the topics in the classes presented haven't changed in decades (if not centuries), so what is there that they need to keep up to date? If it isn't in the latest $150 revision of the textbook (containing the same old material, rearranged), it isn't taught.
This is one reason why I work as an engineer and teach part-time. I incorporate theory-to-practice in my classes as often as possible so that students may benefit from the engineering I do in my day job. Most instructors at four-year engineering schools do not have any industry experience, so they don't even think about what they are lacking and can't pass on to their students. They are more likely to be up-to-date on the latest theoretical research than on engineering practices. I've even encountered professors who think that teaching "skills" is a waste of time; they teach to impart "knowledge." They believe students should develop the needed skills on the job, not in school. They typically do fine preparing students to go to graduate school, but do little to help those that wish to become outstanding engineers after their baccalaureate studies (unless they happen to land in R&D).
Most schools don't do enough to ask for help. In some ways it is a disturbance to the class if the outside industry engineer gives a presentation during class time.
Bringing in outside engineers to lecture is often perceived by instructors as risky. The instructor knows the students' background; the engineer doesn't. The engineer may present something off-topic, give a poor presentation (e.g., too many slides, looks at shoes while talking), or be unprepared to control the classroom setting when student questions lead off on tangents. It can be a disturbance.
I think it is hard to get non-teachers to focus on just one concept to be taught for that one hour. I realize now that is what must be done but that is hard to do and kind of a waste of time for the industry person since the industry person can barely get started in an hour.
True. I develop my course objectives to support the curriculum objectives, my lecture objectives to support the course objectives, and finally, the lecture to support the lecture objectives. I then develop quiz questions written to determine achievement of the lecture objectives and final exam questions written to determine achievement of the course objectives. Everything is tightly integrated, and having an outside engineer present a topic may not result in objectives being discussed or met. However, I've found it can work well if a lot of coordination occurs between the instructor and the engineer to develop a presentation that is effective and based on objectives. It takes a significant amount of time by both the engineer and the instructor to do this - probably more than if the instructor did it alone.
Another problem, the instructor must have a masters degree or Phd. Many experienced engineers don't have this because they have been too busy going to the school of hard knocks and that school doesn't offer degrees or even graduate anybody. You can only drop out.
I agree that requiring a minimum of a master's degree is limiting many potential instructors from teaching, but the academic world is very rank-conscious, especially at research schools. Research grants and publication are typically prerequisites for promotion and tenure, whereas good teaching skills or textbook development or participation in professional societies are minimized (I know, I served on a promotion and tenure committee as a student representative). I work part-time at a teaching school, and they expect their professors to have professional development relating to teaching and industry practices, not research. That's one of the many reasons I work there. Most of my fellow instructors all have industry experience, even those with PhDs, and many of them are PEs. They work closely with local companies and professional societies to develop opportunities for students to learn and to keep the curriculum on track. For example, in the HVAC class, students are doing laboratory work at the central plant in a local city. Students in my I&C courses develop a complete design package for a continuous system using CAD, then build it, program the PLCs and HMIs, tune the PIDs, and commission it, all using lab equipment that has been partially funded by donations from the local ISA chapter or donated by local suppliers I have developed as contacts through the years working professionally.
At my school, adjunct instructors are brought in to teach the junior and senior specialized courses to augment the full-time faculty with experience. This typically does not happen very much at research schools, but the adjuncts are key to our program. The full-time faculty mostly stick to teaching core courses at the freshman and sophomore level. The hydroelectric power instructor works in hydrogeneration at a local utility. The wind power instructor is a senior electrical PE at a wind company. The PhD fuel cells instructor was CTO at a fuel cell startup company. The biofuels instructor is a retired PE ChemE department head who has his own biofuels company. The HVAC and energy auditing/modeling/building simulation professor is a MechE PE, LEED-AP, who did that for a living for over 20 years. I teach the I&C, power, and machines courses, and soon will be teaching nuclear energy (I am a former Navy nuclear reactor operator and recently took my electrical PE exam after 15 years of I&C and electrical experience). I think the adjuncts are why our program is so effective, but most of us couldn't get teaching positions at most four-year research universities.
besides forming effective relationships with the industry suppliers, trade schools and technical colleges must also stay in close contact with their local industries too ... probably the best way to do this is through setting up (and then MAINTAINING!) an active "Advisory Board" of local industry leaders charged with recommending improvements to the school's curriculum ... the board's activities should include frequent reviews of the school's offerings – even to the point of sitting in on representative classes – and regular head-to-head discussions with the instructors in order to gauge their teaching skills ...
I agree. I regularly attend the advisory committee meetings for my program (as an instructor, not a member). I also serve on an advisory committee for a local electronics engineering technology program, where I helped them set up a mechatronics and automation curriculum option for their second-year students and I've advised faculty on leading project-based courses.
If we as professionals aren't seeing what we want coming out of the colleges, it is up to us to get involved to help change their direction. Even if you can't teach for one reason or another, get on an advisory board, mentor design projects, do mock interviews with students, hire interns, judge student competitions, hire faculty to come in during their sabbaticals, etc. There is plenty that can be done to help the state of technical education!
