Alignment between U.S. Civil Engineering Curriculum and the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam: A Report Analysis
Octavio Casusol
Civil Engineering Major, City College of New York
Eng 21007: Writing for Engineering
Professor Sara Jacobson
March 10, 2025
In the research report “Alignment of the FE Exam with Civil Engineering Program Content”, Matthew Swenty, Ph.D., and Brian J. Swenty, Ph.D., examined the relationship between civil engineering curricula and the topics covered in the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam. The paper follows a structured approach, using data collection and various analytical methods to examine the extent to which civil engineering programs – across multiple colleges and universities in the U.S. – align with FE exam topics. This paper will focus on the authors’ rhetorical strategies, ethical discussions and considerations, and the effectiveness of the paper’s structure in conveying research findings. The study aims at various audiences: educators, accreditation companies, and policymakers. Through the author’s usage of formal tone, clear structure, and quantitative methods, credibility is established, allowing the authors to contribute to an ongoing discussion on the development of civil engineering curricula in the U.S.
Swenty and Swenty (2019) introduce their study by discussing the factors influencing civil engineering curricula, such as industry needs, faculty feedback, and accreditation requirements. The introduction effectively sets up the research topic by outlining the necessity of aligning civil engineering programs with the FE exam in preparation for students’ professional licensures. The introduction also establishes the significance of the research by referencing the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) and the role of the FE exam. Furthermore, the authors stated and explained a chosen sample size during the 2017 – 2018 academic year – when online FE exams were implemented and a list of FE exam topics were updated (NCEES, 2014) – to ensure geographical and scholarly diversity during data collection.
In addition to the initial development of the research paper, the authors delve into the importance of reviewing and improving civil engineering curricula. Swenty and Swenty (2019) point briefly to other research papers that proceeded them, illustrating the necessity of comparing civil engineering curricula to FE exam topics: The increase of required credits – and therefore the increase in taught material – requirements for an undergraduate degree (Stouffer, 2005), the necessity of regular evaluation and revision of civil engineering programs (Beheiry, et al., 2012), and a shift in sustainability content in introductory courses in the curriculum (Chau, 2007). The authors continue by introducing the role of accreditation companies, such as ABET Inc., as well as the role of the NCEES in formatting the FE exam (NCEES, 2014). In doing so, the authors provide a line of reasoning, stating that while the FE exam is not academically required (Lawson, 2007), civil engineers are more likely to participate than other fields (NCEES, 2019), providing insight that the exam is essential in advancing the “careers of many of their future graduates” (Swenty and Swenty, 2019). To ensure proper research and analysis of collected data, the authors introduce the framework of their report, using precise language to explain the vital aspects of how civil engineering curricula compare to FE exam topics.
The authors use a structured and transparent methodology to enhance the credibility of their study, further elaborating on the sample of eighty-six civil engineering programs from the 2017 – 2018 academic year. The data collection process was explained in detail, with the authors including a three-step procedure in reviewing course offerings, analyzing course descriptions, and comparing curricula alignment to FE exam topics. The authors also elaborated on the selection of eighty-six programs from a pool of two hundred fifty-four programs accredited by ABET (ABET, 2020), providing insight for readers questioning the legitimacy – or potential bias risk – in the report. One of the paper’s prominent strengths is its use of multiple methods to assess curriculum alignment. The three methods used – determining whether a three-credit houre required course covered an FE topic, evaluating whether any required course addressed an FE topic (and if so, how thoroughly), and assessing course availability – allow for accurate findings. The authors’ clear explanation of their data collection process ensures transparency and reliability – ethical considerations in technical communication (Markel and Selber, 2021).
The authors continue to present their aper with complete transparency, using a structured approach in providing their findings with statistical data, tables, and figures. The results are divided into three sections, effectively providing precise comparisons between the different analytical approaches. The authors also use visual elements, such as Figure 1 and Figure 2, to enhance reader comprehension when learning the authors’ summarized key data points. A notable feature of the results section is when the authors acknowledge variability amongst the three research methods multiple times. An example would be when they stated a difference in result findings between Methods 1 and 2 when answering the first research question. While the authors provided that “five FE topics were covered in 90% or more of the programs”, they stated a difference in data collection, with “five FE topics covered in fewer than 50% of the programs” in Method 1 and “only one FE topic covered in fewer than 50% of the programs” in Method 2 (Swenty and Swenty, 2019). By further elaborating on these findings, the authors maintain transparency to avoid confusion and/or misinterpretation of data, an essential technique in ethical technical writing.
The discussion section summarizes the results and links them to the study’s main research questions. The authors emphasize that while most civil engineering programs cover FE topics, there are noticeable differences in course requirements. The authors note that “mathematics was the only topic covered in 100% of all programs” (Swenty and Swenty, 2019), indicating a lack of uniformity in curriculum coverage. The authors continue to reaffirm the variations in findings amongst the different methods, particularly with Method 3 showing more comprehensive FE topic coverage than Methods 1 and 2. In doing so, the authors demonstrate a continued awareness of data limitations with research methods, providing a balanced analysis. The authors further analyze which FE topics receive the most and least coverage in civil engineering programs. They. Reference Table 5 to highlight FE topics that are frequently excluded, stating curriculum changes, either influenced by industry demand and accreditation standards, have “decreased the emphasis on professional skills” and that students “may be at a disadvantage when they take the FE exam” (Swenty and Swenty, 2019). This acknowledgement of the ethical implications of specific FE topic exclusions develops, with the authors stating that many programs “do not and likely cannot require complete coverage”. In doing so, the authors can pivot accordingly, offering a different perspective about the necessary qualities of a professional civil engineer, stating “civil engineer students must also be prepared to work with the public.” With this, the authors can appropriately assess that a strong case is made for further investigation in curriculum alignment while still providing varying perspectives for their audiences to consider.
Overall, the authors of this research paper consider effective rhetorical strategies, including a formal and objective tone, structured presentation, and the analysis of quantitative data through a multifaceted method approach. The authors also adhere to ethical standards in technical communication by explaining their methodology, acknowledging present and potential limitations, and providing a balanced interpretation of their findings. The study can be a valuable resource for not only accreditation companies and policymakers but also educators and students seeking to enhance their civil engineering education.
References
ABET. (2020). Accredited programs. Retrieved April 1, 2020, from https://amspub.abet.org/aps/name-search?searchType=institution.
Beheiry, S. M., Lebdeh, G. A., Murtula, M., & Al-Tamimi, A. K. (2012, October 7). Integrating sustainability education in a classical civil engineering program: The case of transportation and construction courses. Advanced Materials Research, 347–353, 2921. https://www.scientific.net/AMR.347-353.2921.
Chau, K. W. (2007). Incorporation of sustainability concepts into a civil engineering curriculum. Journal of Civil Engineering Education, 133(3), 188–191. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2007)133:3(188).
NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying). (2014). Fundamentals of Engineering (FE), Civil CBT exam specifications. Retrieved April 18, 2020, from https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/FE-Civil-CBT-specs.pdf.
NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying). (2019). NCEES squared 2018. Retrieved December 3, 2021, from https://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/Squared-2018-for-web.pdf.
Swenty, M., & Swenty, B. J. (2022). Alignment of the FE exam with civil engineering program content. ASCE Library. Retrieved from https://ascelibrary-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/doi/epdf/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EI.2643-9115.0000067.
Leave a Reply