IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDLlCArlON. VOL 34 N O 1 MAY I Y Y I I49

Developing Professionalism in the Electrical Engineering Classroom

Wils L. Cooley, Senior Memhcr, IEEE, Powsiri Klinkhachorn, Member, IEEE, Robert L. McConnell, Member , IEEE, and Nigel T. Middleton, Senior Meinber, IEEE

Abstract-This paper describes an integrated activity in en- gineering ethics and responsibility extending over three class periods in an electrical engineering senior seminar. The activity begins by having the students discuss (using role play) and choose a course of action with respect to a consumer safety product. The choices involve a tradeoff between product cost (and resulting market attractiveness) and the level of safety provided. After they make their decision, we surprise them with a civil court trial, in which they are challenged by a “plaintiff’s attorney” to justify their decisions in an adversarial atmo- sphere. A great deal of interest is generated because the role play becomes real, in the sense that they are called on to defend their actual decisions, rather than reviewing the words and ac- tions of others. They also learn about tort law and liability. Students often describe the mock court class as “the best I ever had in enpinwrinq.”

I . INTRODUCTION T West Virginia University, we have for many years A addressed student professional development through

the use of case studies and class discussion on ethics. li- ability, and safety. Most of this activity has been incor- porated into our senior design course. During accredita- tion reviews, our faculty has been quizzed closely by the ABET visitor on how our program assures the develop- ment of an understanding of the ethical, social, safety, and economic considerations in engineering practice.

While ABET has generally accepted this facet of our program, we have been aware of difficulties in really get- ting the message on professionalism across to the stu- dents. The students often seem bored or detached during the discussions. Sometimes they said that ethics should be discussed in philosophy class, or that the practice of engineering does not involve ethical choices, etc. Discus- sion waned. Even when we tried role playing, most stu- dents were unable to relate closely enough to their as- signed role to react in a professional manner. Recently, we have begun to do something that sparks extreme in- terest among the entire class for several weeks-we “go to court.” We put the class on trial to defend their judg- ments.

The entire exercise takes place over three class periods. We begin by asking them to exercise judgment in a situ- ation that plays economics against risk. We then confront

Manuscript received August 20, 1990. W . L. Cooley, P. Klinkhachorn, and R . L. McConnell arc with the De-

partment of Electrical and Computer Engineering. West Virginia Univcr- sity. Morgantown. WV 26506-6101.

N. T. Middleton is with the Department of Engineering. Colorado School of Mines. Golden, CO.

IEEE Log Number 9144657.

them with a specific example of the results of their deci- sion (an accidental death and a product liability suit). Fi- nally, we have them “fired” as a result of their actions.

11. THE CASE A. EconomicslRisk Homework Assignment

We begin by giving the students a written homework assignment. The scenario concerns a Ground Fault Inter- rupter (GFI) and its hypothetical manufacturer. The stu- dents are informed that a marketing decision on the future of the GFI must be made, and they are given several op- tions along with the projected consequences (see Appen- dix I ) . The options are: 1 ) withdraw their GFI product from the market (because of a lawsuit), 2) continue to market the present GFI, 3) produce a modified device, or 4) develop a completely new GFI design. Several modi- fications are suggested, along with projected data on sales, profits, and risk of accident for each. For each option, estimates of company income and risk of accident are es- timated. The exercise is made more meaningful to the stu- dent by setting up a bonus and stock option program, so that their recommendation has a significant impact on their projected personal income over the next few years. Each student is asked to calculate the financial impact of each option (for information) and recommend which option to pursue. (See Table I for a summary of the results of their calculations). The recommendation is to take the form of a memo to the Chief Engineer, and is to include the ratio- nale behind the recommended action. They are to submit a confidential statement of personal financial impact as well. The students have a week to complete the assign- ment. See Appendix I for the assignment.

B. Class Period # I : Discussion of EconomicslRisk The class is polled for their responses. Each option is

usually chosen by some students so that all or most view- points are represented. We find that most students choose a middle-of-the-road option (Option 3), which preserves their financial security, maximizes the company profit, and reduces (but does not eliminate) risk. The usual ratio- nale is that no workers have to be laid off. A volunteer spokesperson is chosen from those espousing each option, and we begin role play. A faculty member serves as a company executive, and calls a high-level meeting to dis- cuss which option to pursue as an organization. The class listens to the discussion around the conference table as the executive forces the group to make a decision. Breaks the role play are taken to allow the rest of the class

in to

0018 9359/Y1/0500-0149$0I 00 (c, 1991 IEEE

1 so I t E F TRANSACTION$ O N FDUCATION VOL 34, NO 2. MAY 1991

T A B L f : I ECONOMIC PKOJFCTIO\S FOR GFI OPTIONS*

Item Option I Option Z Option 3 Option 4

(Withdraw) (Statu5 quo) (Modify) (Redesign)

Gross revenue earned on GFI ($) 0 I 925 000 Z 280 000 1 282 500 Company profit earned on GFI ( % ) 0 96 250 1 I4 000 64 12.5

Personal profit due to GFI 6) 0 4 440 9 024 6 156

Predicted annual personal expenses ($) 43 703 43 703 43 703 43 703 Personal income surplus-dcjicir ( R ) ( 8 451) (6 387) ( 2 992) ( 4 680)

GFI insurance premium surcharge (S) 0 50 000 20 000 0

After tax personal income (5) 35 257 37 316 40 71 I 39 023

*Year 1 ; projections change in \ubsequent years

contribute to the discussion. The executive pressures his group to form a consensus. Any persistent dissenter is ac- cused of being disloyal or counterproductive. After the decision is finally made, the executive reviews its rami- fications (company finances, personal finances of employ- ees, risk of accident) and the class is dismissed.

C. Class Period #2: The Trial The next class is a total surprise to the students. We

continue the role playing scenario in the form of a civil court proceeding. Several years in the scenario have passed since the meeting described above. The company decision has been implemented and a new “steady state” is achieved. An accident occurs and another lawsuit is brought. Court begins with the faculty members playing various roles. One faculty member serves as the attorney for the plaintiff. In our case, it has been helpful that one faculty member has had experience as an expert witness. He begins by eliciting testimony from a governmental agency accident investigator to establish the facts of the case. (See Appendix I1 for the hypothetical accident sce- nario and other background information.)

Next, the attorney calls the electrician to the stand who installed the device. The electrician is played by a faculty member who comes across as a likable but not too bright handyman, who is confused about the installation instruc- tions and unaware that he may have acted improperly. His improper installation clearly rendered the GFI ineffective, but he has no real assets. It becomes obvious that the plaintiff can gain no financial benefit from pursuing a case against him.

The attention of the court (class) next turns to the de- vice manufacturer. The faculty executive takes the stand, and surprises the class by passing the buck to his engi- neers. He produces memos from them to support his con- tention that rhey were responsible for the decision.

Next, the student who recommended the policy the company pursued is called to testify. The attorney be- comes downright mean.

“Did you write this memo?” Do you mean to tell us that you were aware of a safer

“You put company profit (and your own finances)

“What does the IEEE Code of Ethics say about the

design, but recommended against using it?”

ahead of public safety?”

welfare of the public?”

Once a student is being attacked, class interest becomes intense. It is appropriate to have the unmerciful attorney step back at this point, turn to the class, and ask them for ideas or suggestions about how the student should defend himself or herself. This can be a very lively discussion. After a few minutes of helping the student prepare the defense, the trial continues.

The engineers who originally dissented are subse- quently called to the stand, and are confronted with their acquiescence.

“Did you agree with the decision?” “Do you feel that you did all you could have done to

“Do you accept any responsibility for the decision

The trial does not need to be concluded as most major

protect the public?”

made at the company meeting?”

points have been raised.

D. Class Period #3: The Consequences At the next class meeting, in another surprise, the com-

pany executive calls all engineers who have been on the stand to a meeting. He announces the judgment against the company. He is angry. He blames them for bad com- pany publicity, disloyalty to the company, failure to de- fend the company in court, not being willing to defend their convictions, and bringing in poor engineers. He fires them all on the spot.

We then talk about whatever the class wants to discuss. We find that the students readily identified with the situ- ation, and now understand how it could happen to them. They are particularly interested in what they can do to protect themselves. We advise them to become registered as professional engineers, join the IEEE, be very careful and thorough in their work, be certain that their actions are legal and ethical, and not to work for a boss like the one in the scenario.

This ethics exercise can be carried through to its con- clusion regardless of the option actually chosen in the en- gineers’ meeting. If the group chooses Option 1 (with- draw the product), the plaintiffs attorney can attack the company for withdrawing a product because of safety de- fects, but failing to recall those units already in use, or at least warn their owners. If the group chooses Option 2 (do nothing), the company can be accused of failing to respond to a known threat to public safety. If Option 3 is chosen, the scenario is played out as described in the pa-

-

COOLEY er ( I / : DEVELOPING PROFESSIONALISM I N THE EE CLASSROOM 151

per. If Option 4 (major redesign) is chosen, the students discover in court that the design is faulty, since it needs two detectors as well as two isolators. The engineers then become guilty of negligence in the practice of design, since they marketed a product that does not work.

rate of $200 per month last year, implying that your an- nual committed expenses were $41 622. You expect these expenses to increase at a rate of 5 % per year for the next few years.

Some recent events have prompted the management of your company to review the future of the GFI. First, a

CONCLUSION We first put the students on trial in the Spring of 1990.

We have continued the exercise each semester, refining our approach each time. We conclude that this approach has been extremely successful in helping students to un- derstand what it means to be a engineering professional. Although we had been dealing with the topics addressed for many years, the students often found the material bor- ing and unrelated to engineering as they perceived it. All this was changed by being challenged directly, in front of witnesses, to accept responsibility for their statements and actions related to a tragic death.

APPENDIX I HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

SCENARIO You are the engineer in charge of the Safety Products

Division of a medium-sized electrical products design and manufacturing company. Your division is responsible for a number of electrical distribution products, including a Ground Fault Interrupter (GFI), which has been a popular product and a competitive seller for the last ten years. The GFI costs $22.00 and has a sales figure of 125 000 during the last fiscal year. The sales of these GFI’s grossed the company $2.75 million and earned the company a profit (calculated at the company’s standard rate of 5%) of $137 500 during that year.

The company operates a profit-sharing scheme, where 40% of the company profits are used to supplement the salaries of professional staff in the division responsible for the profit-earning product. The individual amounts re- ceived are pro-rated according to base salaries, and as Di- vision Head you receive 24% of the profit returned to your Division. Your two Design Engineers each get 17% of this amount, while your three Production Engineers each get 14%. On this scheme, the contribution of the GFI profit to your income was $13 200 last year.

Profit earned from the sale of other items handled by your division contributed another $10 500 to your income last year, so that your total income, when added to your base salary of $40 000, was $63 700. In addition, you own 4000 of your company’s shares, currently valued at $5,00, and last year the annual dividend payment was 15% on the share, earning you $3 000, so that your gross in- come (as reflected on your tax return) was $66 700. Your “take-home” pay (after tax withholding, pension, and health deductions) works out to be 66% of your gross in- come, giving you $44 022 last year.

Your lifestyle is such that you have personal financial commitments relating to mortgage and loan repayments, childrens’ school expenses, and the ever-increasing cost of living. However, you did manage to save at an average

competing company has announced a GFI of superior de- sign to yours, at a price of only $24.00. Second, your company has had to face another lawsuit involving your Division’s GFI. In this case, a young woman was electro- cuted and her family sued your company for $2 million. The plaintiff, claiming that your GFI did not provide total protection to fault conditions (a situation which is true with the present design and which is discussed in the Technical Addendum), won the case and your company’s insurers have settled the claim. The consequences of these events have been quite serious: your company’s insurers have raised their premiums by $50 000 a year, the com- pany’s share value has fallen to $4.00 with a predicted dividend payment of only 10% this year, and marketing forecasts a loss of 30% of GFI sales per year for the next few years. An executive decision has been taken to fi- nance the insurance premium increment from the 5% company profit earned from GFI sales.

You are very concerned about this situation. Some sim- ple arithmetic shows that the declining dividends and de- clining earnings from the GFI will affect your income so that you cannot meet your existing or projected personal financial commitments. More significantly, but from a very different viewpoint, your conscience is seriously troubled by the recent fatality which was caused by the product for which you are responsible. By sheer coinci- dence, the victim was a close college friend of yours many years back, and the death has resulted in a single-parent family with very young children.

Working with the company’s legal and marketing staff, your Chief Engineer, and the design engineers in your Division, you have identified the following possible courses of action.

(The attached Technical Addendum covers the techni- cal aspects of these options).

Option 1: Withdraw the GFI from the market. Clearly, this action has ramifications on your personal income, but there are also some company issues which need consid- eration. The closure of the GFI production line will re- quire laying off your GFI Production Engineer and 15 of your 25 GFI assembly line workers. There are no imme- diate opportunities for your Production Engineer else- where in the company, and the other 10 assembly line workers can only be employed doing less skilled work in another Division and at a lower hourly wage rate. With the departure of your GFI Production Engineer, your pro- rated profit share would increase from 24% to 27 %. Also, the wages which where previously paid to your laid-off assembly line workers could be used for a short-term (1 year) product development project. You are very enthu- siastic to completely redevelop the GFI, using new solid- state technologies, new enclosure plastics, and new as- sembly methods which take advantage of automated man-

I52 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION. VOL. 34. NO. 2. MAY 1991

ufacturing. You believe that this project can be success- fully completed in one year with the funds released by the laid-off assembly line workers, although most of a second year will probably pass while you implement the new manufacturing system. Your new GFI would be far su- perior to any other GFI which is currently on the market, and you believe that this new product would gross reve- nues in excess of $3.5 million after 4 years.

Option 2: Do nothing. While this would not be gen- erally acceptable because of the bad image the product is casting on the company, it does avoid lay offs and retains the post for your Production Engineer, who happens to be a personal friend. Unfortunately, you need to reconcile your conscience against the product’s safety hazard and the declining profits and dividends.

Option 3; Carry out a minor design modification which includes a warning light on the existing GFI. While this light does not eliminate all possible protection problems related to the connection of the GFI, it does warn the user if the GFI has been incorrectly installed. The user will be advised to check this light on installation, but if the GFI is wrongly wired and the user either fails to check and respond to the light, or chooses to ignore the light, a fa- tality of the type described earlier could still occur. The insurers view this modification favorably, resulting in a smaller premium increment compared to the $50 000 presently imposed. Company analysts have made the fol- lowing projections relating to this modification.

Sales 95 000 per year costs $24.00 Insurance increment $20 000 (reduced to this figure

from the $50 000 increment if nothing is done)

12% on the share Company share price $4.60 Dividend payment No lay offs would be required with this option.

Option 4: Carry out a more significant modification on the existing design, so that the GFI offers full protection under all conditions, by including isolators at all strategic points in the power circuits. The increased expense of this approach has resulted in a severely diminished sales fore- cast, but the company insurers would be sufficiently sat- isfied so that the premium increments are completely waived. In this case, the projections are

Sales 45 000 per year cost $28.50 Insurance increment $0 Company share price $4.75 Dividend payment No lay offs would be required with this option.

13 % on the share

ASSIGNMENT: The following memorandum is deliv- ered to your office. Write (word-process) a response memo which is due at 1:00 p.m. on Monday, February 28, 1991.

M E M O R A N D U M

To: From: Chief Engineer TM Date: 2-12-91 Subject: Ground Fault Interrupters

Head of Safety Products Division

There is an item on the CEO’s agenda for my next meeting with him, scheduled for 3-21-91, to resolve the GFI issue. He is insisting that we make a final decision on that date.

Please respond with a memo to me by 1:00 p.m. on 2-18-91, giving your recommendations on the course of action we should follow. You know the CEO-be sure that your recommendations are fully supported and that they present a convincing argument! Give the reasons for your choice of action.

He will also want to review confidentially the projected effect on your income as a result of the course of action which you recommend. This information will be needed for auditing purposes; please prepare a financial break- down which shows the derivation of your take-home pay.

Regards

TECHNICAL ADDENDUM The circuit diagram for the existing Ground Fault In-

terrupter (GFI) is shown below in Fig. 1. It should be connected so that the incoming power lines are connected to the LINE terminals and the outgoing lines into the cir- cuit to be protected are connected to the LOAD terminals. When a ground fault occurs, the live and neutral currents cease to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction since some current drains away to ground. The detector coil senses the imbalance between the live and neutral currents, and triggers a detector circuit which trips a two- pole contactor and interrupts the flow of current. The de- tector is normally set for a 5 mA ground fault sensitivity. A resistive circuit with a pushbutton switch which by- passes 5 mA across the detector coil is used to simulate a ground fault and test the operation of the GFI when the switch is depressed.

The GFI offers some versatility by having a main re- ceptacle as part of the device. Since this receptacle is on the LOAD side of the contactor, it is also protected from ground faults.

The GFI does not offer full protection if it is incorrectly installed. In particular, if the LINE and LOAD connec- tions are interchanged, the device will appear to operate correctly since it will trip the contactor when the test but- ton is pushed. However, the main receptacle will not be protected and a safety hazard exists if this receptacle is being used.

One method to improve the safety worthiness of the design is to connect a light across the circuit as shown in Fig. 2. If the light does not go out when the device is

COOLEY et a/: DEVELOPING PROFESSIONALISM IN THE EE CLASSROOM 153

GROUND

OUTLET RECEPTACLE

TEST BUTTON

GROUND

I I GROUND 1 1 GROUND

m Fig. I . The existing GFI.

TEST OUTLET BUTTON RECEPTACLE

P O P 1 1 1

LIVE

Fig. 2 . Light modification to the GFI

TEST BUTTON

OUTLET RECEPTACLE

GROUND GROUND T m I o

Fig. 3. The GFI with dualisolation protection

tested, it will imply that it is incorrectly installed and that the connections should be checked. This improvement is satisfactory, provided that the installer performs this test and responds appropriately if the light does not go out.

To overcome the weakness in safety precautions with the light, an extra contactor could be included in the de- vice, as shown in Fig. 3. When a ground fault is detected, this arrangement will give full protection, irrespective of the LINE and LOAD connections.

APPENDIX I1 HYPOTHETICAL ACCIDENT SCENARIO A N D

BACKGROUND A . Victim

The victim was Dr. Bud Midas, a young and talented neurosurgeon. He had just completed his residency, and had taken up practice in a medium-sized city. He had mar- ried about six months before his death, and his wife was pregnant. They had purchased their house shortly after

they were married. It was about 10 years old, and had an indoor swimming pool which was installed two years ago.

B. Electrician The electrician is a high school drop out. He is self-

educated as an electrician. He is self-employed as a build- ing remodeling contractor. He does electrical work, but is not certified as such by any official body. He has a wife and four children. He has been taking GED classes at night, and has recently graduated. He is now planning to take classes at the local community college if he can af- ford it. His wife babysits in the home to earn extra money. They own a small house with a large mortgage, and have difficulty meeting the payments. They are proud that they have never been on welfare. He installs GFI devices from time to time. He does not understand the operating prin- ciples behind the GFI and does not remember seeing any installation instructions. Even if he did, it is clear that he would have trouble even reading them. “You’d have to be an electrical engineer to read these.”

C. Engineer (Student) The student has a B.S.E.E. degree from your school.

He/she has had no formal courses in electrical safety nor any formal courses in risk assessment, either as part of the B.S. degree or continuing education. He/she was a designer of light dimmers before being assigned to head the GFI division. He/she is a member of IEEE, but is not a Registered Professional Engineer.

D. Company Executive He is college educated, but has no scientific or techni-

cal training. He has an MBA, and is very aggressive. He rose to the top through marketing and sales, jobs at which he was a superb performer.

E. The Installation Instructions The instructions are packed with the GFI. We enter a

typical set of instructions as evidence at the trial. They are very detailed, covering each of the several possible installation configurations that may be used. They also contain a detailed test procedure for each case. The book- let is 12 pages altogether, and is printed in very small type so that it will be small enough to fit in the box with the GFI. Besides being so extensive, the instructions are poorly worded and ambiguous. For instance, the test pro- cedure states: “Push the TEST button. The RESET but- ton should pop out. This should result in power being OFF at all outlets protected by the GFI. If the GFI has an in- dicator light, this light should be ON when the circuit is complete. ”

F. The Accident The victim was cleaning his swimming pool with an

electric swimming pool vacuum. It was plugged into the main receptacle of a feed-through type GFI. He pushed

I54 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION. VOL. 34, NO. 2. MAY I991

the test button of the GFI and the reset button popped out. He reset it and proceeded with the job. While cleaning the pool, he noticed some debris behind the ladder. He could not maneuver the cleaning head behind the ladder from the pool deck, so he jumped into the water to get a better angle. As he was angling the hose behind the ladder, he pulled too hard and tipped the vacuum over. It fell into the water beside him and he was electrocuted.

Powsiri Klinkhachorn (M’83) received the M.S . and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from West Virginia University, Morgantown, and the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology, Thailand.

He is an Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown. His research interests include the automated lumber processing system, the application of s i n g k c h i p micropro- cessors to control systems, data acquisition and

The GFI did not protect him because it was not in- treatment systems, computer hardwareisoftware development, and com- stalled correctly. The line and load terminals were re- versed upon installation. If the unit had an indicator light, it would stay lit when the test button was pushed, but he

Puter architecture.

Kappa N u , Dr. Klinkhachom is a member of Sigma Xi, Phi Kappa Phi, and Eta

was ignorant about how to interpret the “push” test (i.e., he didn’t know whether the light was to go out or stay on).

REFERENCES [ I ] Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Engineering in the United States.

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. New York, 1989. [2] IEEE Code of Ethics. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Inc., Piscataway, N. J . [3] The IEEE Role in Engineering Ethics. Institute of Electrical and Elec-

tronics Engineers, Inc. , Piscataway. New Jersey, 1982. [4] Joseph H. Wujek, P. E . , personal communication

Wils L. Cooley (M’69-SM’80) received the B.S. . M.S. , and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

He has been a Principal Investigator on several research contracts and grants from the Bureau of Mines concerning mine electrical safety, both in coal mining and metalinonmetal mining. He is currently Professor and Associate Chairman of Electrical and Computer Engineering at West Vir- ginia University, Morgantown. He also serves as a Consultant on mine electrical hazards and

grounding. He has taught engineering design since 1969. He has been as- sociated with the WVU senior project design faculty for approximately 7 years.

Dr. Cooley is a member of the Mining Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. the Mining Electro-Mechanical Mainte- nance Association, the American Society for Engineering Education, the Society of Sigma Xi, and several scholastic honorary societies. He has served on several national committees concerned with electrical equipment standards. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of West Virginia.

Robert L. McConnell received the B.E.E. and M.S . degrees in electrical engineering from Ohio State University, Columbus, in 1962 and 1964, respectively, and the Ph .D . degree from the Uni- versity of Kentucky, Lexington. in 1976.

He spent four years at IBM, Lexington, KY, where he was involved in product design and de- velopment. He then joined the faculty of West Virginia University, Morgantown, where he is presently an Associate Professor in Electrical En- gineering. He started teaching the senior design

course in 1983; and has developed several design and professionally related materials for the electrical engineering curriculum.

Nigel T. Middleton (M’85-SM’87) received the B.Sc. (Eng.) and Ph.D. degrees from the Univer- sity of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. in 1976 and 1985, respectively.

He is currently Associate Professor and Assis- tant Head of the Department of Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO. From 1985 to 1990. he was Assistant Professor of Elec- trical and Computer Engineering at West Virginia University. Morgantown. His research and teach- ing interests cover digital signal processing, con-

trol, and engineering desigo. From 1977 to 1985, he was employed by the Chamber of Mines Research Organization, South Africa, where he was involved in a number of electrical and systems engineering projects relating to deep gold mines. During his tenure with this organization, he held the positions of Chief of the Electrical Engineering Division and Chief of the Power and Control Divisions.

Dr. Middleton is a Registered Professional Engineer in South Africa. He is a member of the HKN Electrical Engineering Honorary, the South Af- rican Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and the South African Institute of Electrical Engineers. During 1984, he was a Council Member and Na- tional Chairman of the Measurement, Computation, and Control Section of the SAIEE. He received the West Virginia University College of Engi- neering Centennial Award for Outstanding Teaching in 1987.