defining, developing and assessing

8/2/2019 Defining, Developing and Assessing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/defining-developing-and-assessing 1/14

This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary]On: 21 December 2011, At: 16:31Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Engineering

EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:

htt p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ ceee20

Defining, developing and assessing

global competence in engineersJack R. Lohmann

a, Howard A. Rollins

a& J. Joseph Hoey

a

a Georgia Inst itute of Technology, At lanta, GA, 30332-0740, USA

Available online: 11 Feb 2011

To cite this article: Jack R. Lohmann, Howard A. Rollins & J. Joseph Hoey (2006): Defining,

developing and assessing global competence in engineers, European Journal of Engineering

Education, 31:01, 119-131

To link to this art icle: http: / / dx.doi. org/ 10.1080/ 03043790500429906

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790500429906

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790500429906

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20



European Journal of Engineering Education

Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2006, 119–131

Defining, developing and assessing global

competence in engineers

JACK R. LOHMANN*, HOWARD A. ROLLINS, JR, and J. JOSEPH HOEY

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0740, USA

(Received 31 March 2005; in final form 14 October 2005)

Engineering curricula are increasingly focused on developing student competencies. Many newcompetencies needed by engineers today are professional skills (sometimes called the ‘soft skills’).Among the new competencies for engineering graduates is global competence, the ability to workknowledgeably and live comfortably in a transnational engineering environment and global society.While there is broad agreement within the engineering community for the need to better prepareengineers for global practice, there is much less agreement as to what skills and abilities define globalcompetence, what combination and duration of international education and experiences best instil itand what means and metrics should be used to judge whether students have attained it. This paperpresents a conceptual model to define global competence, a curriculum model for instilling it andan assessment model to determine if graduates have attained it. It concludes with a description of aquasi-experimental research effort now underway designed to evaluate and validate these models.

Keywords: Assessment; Engineering education; Global competence; Globalization; Internationaleducation; International experiences

1. Introduction

There has been a vigorous debate within the worldwide engineering community concerningthe importance of preparing engineers for transnational practice and a global society, as can beobserved in the many recent reports, conferences, accreditation reforms and efforts to enhance

career mobility (American Society for Engineering Education 1994, Socíeté Européenne pourla Formation des Ingénieurs 1999, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst 2002, Accred-itation Board for Engineering and Technology 2003, Borri 2003, Soeiro 2003). While manyaspects of society and commerce have become internationalized, it cannot yet be said formany university curricula that they prepare students to live and work in a global commu-nity, especially engineers. Incorporating international preparation into engineering curricula,however, has proven to be a major challenge. It is due largely to the highly sequenced andcontent-demanding nature of the curriculum. Nonetheless, engineering programs are findingways to incorporate language preparation, coursework in global studies, transnational design

*Corresponding author. Tel: +1 404 894 2966; Fax: +1 404 385 6940; Email: [email protected]

European Journal of Engineering EducationISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online © 2006 SEFI

http://www.tandf.co.uk/ journalsDOI: 10.1080/03043790500429906



120 J.R. Lohmann et al.

projects or international study or internships into the curriculum to instil some internationalpreparation.

However,veryfewoftheseeffortsalsoseektodeterminewhethertheinternationaleducationor experience provided instils what is really needed.1 What kind of knowledge or experience

best imparts global competence? How should it be translated into global engineering know-how and cultural savoir faire? Is there a critical combination that best develops the confidenceand capability to live and work in a transnational world? Indeed, what defines global com-petence? Assuming there are answers to these questions, what are the most effective ways toinstil global competence and how does one assess that graduates have obtained it? These verybasic questions remain largely unanswered.

Defining, developing and assessing global competence for engineers is an emerging fieldof inquiry. This paper first proposes a conceptual model for global competence, then presentsa curriculum model designed to instil it, and finally describes an assessment model to evaluateif graduates have obtained it. It concludes with a brief description of a quasi-experimental

research effort now underway that seeks to test and validate these models. While these modelswere developed with engineering majors in mind, we believe they are applicable more broadlyto other disciplines as well.

2. The global society and global engineer

Globalization is a fact of life, whether in the management of business enterprises, the conductof government affairs or the exploration of the frontiers of science and technology (Ratchford

1998, Grose 1999, Wheeler 2001). Our highly interdependent global society is as much aresult of the need to address major worldwide challenges, such as sustainability, health andsecurity, as it is the result of important advances in the conduct of international commerce, e.g.the European Union, NAFTA, and the creation of nearly instantaneous worldwide commu-nications using cell phones and the Internet (McGraw 2000a, Akay 2003). These challengesand opportunities are dramatically and rapidly changing the role of engineers in society and,consequently, the nature of engineering practice (Loftus 2003).

Throughout most of the 1990s the international engineering community engaged in vigor-ous dialogues concerning the impact of globalization on society, commerce, the environmentand, of course, the engineering profession. The issues discussed were extensive, often inter-related and always multi-faceted. For example, Wulf (1997) offered the seven trends that hefelt had ‘the potential to change the practice of engineering significantly and hence the edu-cation required to be an engineer’. Among the trends were: the vast array of new materialsand processes that broaden an engineer’s design space; the pervasive use of information tech-nology; the increasing number and complexity of constraints (e.g. cost, safety, ecology); therise in the need to have both specific technical knowledge and breadth of knowledge; the needfor teamwork and broad business knowledge; the rapid pace of change calling for life-longlearning; globalization, the shift from a ‘nationally differentiated engineering enterprise toone that is far more cosmopolitan’.

While these trends suggest a rather daunting educational challenge to prepare engineers forsuch a multifaceted engineering environment, three new skills and abilities required of future

engineers seem to emerge from much of the conversation. First, engineers need a broadermultidisciplinary base of knowledge, especially in fields that were traditionally viewed astangential to engineering education, such as global socio-economic and political systems,international commerce and world markets, environmental systems and research and tech-nological innovation (Bordogna 1997, McGraw 2000b). Indeed, one study found that only



Global competence in engineers 121

38% of the US workforce with a BSc in engineering actually worked as engineers (Panitz1998). The remainder worked as engineering managers, entrepreneurs, patent attorneys, tech-nical writers, CEOs, financial analysts, salespersons and educators, among other positions.The role of the engineer has become quite broad. Second, engineers need more refined

and diverse interpersonal skills, particularly in global collaborations (Sheppard et al. 2003,Swearengen et al. 2003, Andersen 2005, Shuman et al. 2005). ‘The business of being cre-ative is fundamental to our long-term economic health. Cultural and ethnic diversity fosterthis creativity. A diverse group of people has a better chance of recognizing opportunities’(McGraw 2004). In effect, diverse groups are more innovative and effective. Finally, engineersneed the ability to live and work comfortably in a transnational engineering environment.Most engineering now involves large, complex and multinational projects. Many engineerswill find themselves working and/or living in foreign environments during much of theircareer. This places an increased emphasis on language and communication skills (Maloneet al. 2003). The facility to communicate in other languages and to assimilate with ease into

foreign workplaces and lifestyles are critical to both professional and life success. Amadei(2004) summarized well the new expectations of engineers: ‘Engineers have a collectiveresponsibility to improve the lives of people around the world …the engineering professionmust revisit its mindset and adopt a new mission statement – to contribute to the building of amore sustainable, stable, and equitable world’. In essence, engineers must think and act on aglobal scale.

It follows, therefore, that engineering curricula must instil this global mindset, which, whentranslated to skills and abilities, might be called ‘global competence’. But what constitutesglobal competence and what set of educational and practical experiences best instil it? Gainingproficiency in a second language? Incorporating coursework in international studies?Studying

or working abroad? Collaborating on a multinational design project? Doing some of these, orall of these? How long, how much, in what combination or proportion?While defining global competence is challenging, creating globally competent engineers

capable of thrivingin the21st century is anevengreater challenge.Most international educationscholars concur that at least three elements are needed to produce globally competent students:coursework in international studies, second language proficiency and international experience(Hayword 2000, Hunter 2004). However, there is much less consensus about the kind of international coursework needed, the level of language proficiency desired and the lengthand nature of the international experience. Adelman (1999) suggested that a high level of ‘global preparedness’requires a minimum of eight credits (or two courses) of advanced collegelevel language study, two or more international studies courses and a period of study abroad.Obviously, students can and do accomplish some or all of these three elements without anyorganized university program. Presumably, however, we would not consider a student globallycompetentjustbecauseheorshehadstudiedalanguage,takenacoupleofinternationalcoursesand had some international experience. We believe two other elements are needed (Lohmannand Rollins 2004). First, global competence is the result of a coherent program of internationalstudies and experience. We believe the type of international knowledge and the nature andduration of the international experience, and their interconnections, are important. Second,the international knowledge and experience should be integrated and relevant to a student’sfield of study, i.e. global competence should include an understanding of the relevance of international cultures to a student’s major.

Developing such global competence within the traditional engineering curriculum has beenchallenging. So much so that international preparation is often addressed as an add-on tothe curriculum, such as minors and certificates, or is relegated to short summer experiencesabroad. A more integrated andimmersive approach is neededand warranted if futureengineersare to graduate globally competent.




3. Developing global competence

What are universities actually doing to instil global competence in students, especiallyengineering students? In the USA a number of universities have developed international pro-grams designed to prepare students to live and work in the global context of the 21st century,although most do not specifically mention global competence as a goal. These programs fallinto four categories: co-majors or dual majors (e.g. Pennsylvania State University, Iowa StateUniversity and University of Rhode Island), minors or certificates (e.g. Iowa State University,Purdue University, Universityof Illinois, Universityof Michigan and Universityof Pittsburgh),international internships or projects (e.g. Worcester Polytechnic University and PennsylvaniaState University) or study abroad (e.g. University of Minnesota). A number of these programsare open to students in any discipline but may be difficult for engineers to complete given thenumber of courses required outside the students’ majors. A summary of these efforts as theyapply to engineers is as follows.2

3.1 Co-majors or dual majors

Students earn the equivalent of two bachelor degrees, one in engineering and the other inliberal arts or international studies. The University of Rhode Island offers a five year dualdegree in engineering and language (German, French or Spanish). In addition to meeting therequirements for the language and engineering degrees, students spend an academic year out-side the USA, either on an internship, studying at an exchange university or undertaking acombination of study and internship. Among all universities reviewed, the Rhode Island pro-gram provides the most extensive language study, study of another culture (through advanced

language courses) and the longest period of study overseas. However, this comprehensive-ness comes at the cost of requiring an additional year of study. Moreover, there appears to belittle linkage between the international study and the student’s engineering major. The otherco-majors (Penn State and Iowa State) involve taking 10 courses outside the major, includingsecond language study and coursework in international studies. Penn State requires minimalinternational experience (9 weeks), whereas Iowa State requires none.

3.2 Minors and certificates

Two universities offer an international minor in engineering (Illinois and Michigan). Both

programmes require significant second language learning, two or three international coursesand a period of study or work (minimum six or eight weeks) outside the USA. Pittsburghoffers a globalstudies certificate designed to instil globalcompetence through secondlanguagelearning and international coursework, but with no international experience.

3.3 International experience

Anumberofuniversitiesplaceexclusiveemphasisoninternationalexperience.BothPennStateandWorcesterPolytechnicoffer studentswell-developedinternational projects. In PennState’sPrestige Consortium students spend a semester overseas. Students collaborate on a four-week

design project with peers at European partner universities and then spend an additional four toeight weeks on internships. In the Global Perspective Program Worcester Polytechnic Instituteoffers its engineering students a seven week overseas project design course that immerses thestudents in the host country, designing solutions to local problems. Finally, the University of Minnesota has focused on integrating study abroad into engineering and other disciplines.




The emphasis at Minnesota has been to match engineering courses at partner universities torequired engineering courses at Minnesota.

All of these programs are commendable and represent pioneering efforts at international

education for engineers. However, some of these programs omit one or more of the threecomponents of global competency (language proficiency, international coursework and inter-national experience) and others place differing emphases on the three elements. Someprograms, especially the co-majors, may delay graduation for engineering students. Manyof the programs require language learning and international coursework but do not tie theseelements intentionally to the student’s discipline.

GeorgiaTechalsooffers similar programs, however, it has recentlylauncheda new initiative,called the International Plan, which is designed to go well beyond the traditional approaches toinstil global competence (Rollins et al. 2004). This program, designed for completion withinfouryears,includesthethreecomponentsdeemedessentialforglobalcompetence:courseworkin international studies, language proficiency and an immersive international experience. Ahallmark of this program, and one that sets it apart from other programs, is that it is integratedintothestudent’sdisciplinarystudies.Participantsgainanappreciationforhowculturalcontextaffects the practice of the discipline. Successful participants receive a designation on theirdiploma and transcript signifying the depth and breadth of their global competence in thediscipline (i.e. Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering: International Plan). The generalrequirements for the International Plan are shown in table 1. Participating units then tailortheir degree programs within this framework of requirements.

Successful students must satisfy three requirements to earn the International Plan designa-tion. First, students must complete four courses in international studies, choosing one coursefrom each of three general categories plus a culminating course. The three categories are inter-

national relations, global economics and a course with an emphasis on a country or region. Thethree categories of courses provide both an academic foundation and a context to complement

Table 1. The general requirements for the International Plan.

A. Course requirements. The following courses constitute the curricular component of the International Plan.They provide the academic foundation that complements the international experience.i. At least one course focused on international relations historically and theoretically, including, among other

issues, topics such as: the role of state sovereignty and nationalism and non-state actors in the internationalsystem; international conflict, peace, security, intervention and nation building; international organizations,law and ethics; transnational problems of the environment, terrorism, health, and migration.

ii. At least one course that provides a historical and theoretical understanding of the global economy, includingtopics such as: international trade, finance, investment and production; regional economic integration (such asthe EU); economic development and modernization; questions of natural resource sustainability.

iii. At least one course that provides familiarity with another country or world region that allows systematiccomparisons of society and culture. This course should be directly relevant to the international context of theintended overseas experience in Part C.

iv. A culminating academic experience that integrates knowledge of the discipline and the internationalexperience in a global context. The academic experience may be offered within specific disciplines or in amulti-disciplinary context.

B. Second language requirement. Students must demonstrate competency in a language other than English at anappropriate level. The language requirement may be satisfied in a student’s native language if it is not English.All students must demonstrate at least a level of proficiency corresponding to that expected following two yearsof college coursework in the language.Students whose international study/work experience (Part C below) is in a language other than English mustdemonstrate a level of proficiency corresponding to “ACTFL’s Intermediate High” by the time of graduation.

C. International experience requirement. Two academic terms of residential foreign experience are required,which must be characterized by living among and being immersed within the local international academic,research or work community. A total of 26 weeks (six months) of active engagement is required.The terms may consist of full-time academic study, internship or research. Academic study may occur at GeorgiaTech international campuses, at Georgia Tech international partner institutions or in a faculty-directed residentialprogram.




the international experience. The culminating course, which occurs either at the end of orafter the international experience, integrates and brings to closure knowledge of the disciplineand the international experience in a global context. The culminating course is offered by thestudent’s major department or in collaboration with other departments.

Second, participants must demonstrate second language proficiency. Students are expectedto reach the proficiency level equivalent to two years of college level language study. Profi-ciency is determined by an individually administered standardized test. Students who electto study in a country whose primary language is not English will use the second language tostudy, work or conduct research and, therefore, are expected to meet a higher proficiency levelin the second language.

Finally, third, participants mustengage in a significant international experience consisting of two terms (a minimum of 26 weeks) of international experience, which must be characterizedby living among and immersed within the local academic, research or work community. Theterms may consist of any combination of academic study, internship or research. Academic

study may occur at one of Georgia Tech’s overseas campuses, at an international partnerinstitution or in a faculty-directed residential program.

Each academic discipline tailors the program to meet the specific needs of that discipline,such as the location and type of international experience and the nature of the culminatingcourse. This approach not only makes the program particularly relevant to students in thatdiscipline, it also enables the faculty in each discipline to take ownership of the InternationalPlan and to feel comfortable recommending the plan to its majors.

The International Plan is Georgia Tech’s ‘signature program’ to attempt to instil globalcompetence in undergraduates from any discipline. However, given that Georgia Tech is atechnology institute, the plan must work for science and engineering majors. While meeting

the needs of these students required some compromises, the International Plan is intended toset a high standard for the level of global competence achieved by participants. We expectparticipants to be knowledgeable about how the world works, to have significant languageproficiency and to be comfortable living and practicing their discipline outside the USA. Thus,while we believe these three elements are essential competencies for all engineering studentsregardless of where they receive their education, the particular curricular requirements of theInternational Plan shown in table 1 are aimed at US students, and the strengths and limitationsthey bring with them to the university from their secondary education. Other institutions caneasily modify or emphasize various curriculum elements depending on their students’ needsand pre-college preparation.

4. Assessing global competence

Georgia Tech’s International Plan offers a set of elements required to instil global competencein undergraduate students. However, to what extent are these elements (language proficiency,international study or international experience) necessary conditions for global competenceand how much of each is required? Reliable answers to these and other empirical questions canbest be found through appropriate methods for assessing student learning outcomes related toglobalcompetence. How do we operationalizeandmeasure globalcompetence?What research

designs should be employed to determine the overall effectiveness of the International Planand the relative contribution of each of its elements?

Answers to these questions have proven elusive, since the literature on international edu-cation and experiences is primarily concerned with study abroad programs. Most reportedevaluations of study abroad programs dwell on logistical and actuarial aspects or with student




satisfaction (see, for example, University of Minnesota 2004). Few evaluations have dealt withstudent learning effects or career impact (Bettez and Lineberry 2004, Peters 2004). In fact,Sideli (2001) found that less than 10% of study abroad programs are measuring career-relatedoutcomes and only 15% are assessing aspects of intercultural proficiency. If gains in student

competency through international experiences are mentioned, the reports are primarily lim-ited to the development of psycho-social outcomes, such as increased self-confidence andincreased understanding of participants’ cultural values and biases (see, for example, Suttonand Rubin 2002, Dwyer and Peters 2004).

Given the concentration on study abroad programs within the literature on internationalexperiences, a surprisingly broad array of assessment methods have been utilized, including:electronic portfolios (American Council on Education 2005); standardized instruments usedin a pre-test/post-test schema, such as the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammeret al. 2003);student written accounts of their experiences andstructured interviews (ZhangandLi 2005); focus groups (Evans and Lelik 2005); self-reports of gains in foreign language skills

(Gray 2002); student satisfaction inventories (University of Minnesota 2004). Largely absentare studies featuring rigorous methods for assessing foreign language ability or competenciesspecifically related to professional practice within the academic discipline.

Within engineering education the literature on the results of international experiences is evenmore circumscribed. For example, orientation survey data were analyzed for pre-existing dif-ferences among entering first year engineering students who eventually participated or didnot participate in international experiences; participants in international experiences werefound to exhibit a higher social orientation and predisposition towards civic and communityinvolvement than non-participants (Demetry and Vaz 2002). Self-reported increases in under-standing of engineering practices and standards in the host country visited, a higher likelihood

of seeking a position with multinational companies and increased likelihood of a change incareer plans as a result of an international experience have also been found (Gerhardt andMartin 1999). Pilot evaluation results of gains in student learning relative to EC2000 programoutcomes at the University of Louisville include increased confidence in applying engineer-ing skills to real-world problem solving and increased insight into other cultures (Bettez andLineberry 2004).

In short, most reported evaluations of student international experiences are concernedwith study abroad programs. Group comparison studies on gains in student proficienciesthrough international experiences are not evident. Standards for skill gains in foreign languageproficiency as a result of international experiences are not reported. While self-reports of aca-demic competency gains are occasionally featured, rigorous assessments of those skills gains,especially those relevant to engineering education, are notably absent.

The assessment model for the Georgia Tech International Plan is designed to address theseneeds for a better understanding of global competence in a broader setting of internationaleducation and experiences. The centerpiece of the assessment model is a set of operationaldefinitions of each facet of global competence, each expressed in measurable terms.

Basic global competence is the product of both education and experience, and it is characterized by a graduate’sability to (1) communicate in a second language via speaking, listening, reading, and writing ( second language

proficiency); (2) demonstrate substantively the major social–political–economic processes and systems (com-

parative global knowledge); (3) assimilate knowledgeably and with ease into foreign communities and workenvironments (intercultural assimilation); and (4) communicate with confidence and specificity the practice of

his or her major in a global context (disciplinary practice in a global context ). (Georgia Institute of Technology2005)

Two other definitional parameters are included in the assessment model. First, the modelmust be capable of yielding formative information for use in programmatic improvement




as the intervention commences and develops and summative information to enable a judg-ment of the efficacy and worth of the intervention. Second, the model must be sufficientlytriangulated and flexible to permit comparisons of operational efficiency and the effect onparticipants of each of the components of the International Plan, independent of the other com-

ponents, since the impact of each component of the plan may not be uniform. This approachwill yield comparative, quasi-experimental evidence of student learning across all relevantcompetency areas, including the professional practice of engineering, such that the effect of participation in the International Plan on participants may be differentiated from those stu-dents who do not participate and thus be validated as a set of educational strategies. Thisshould allow us not only to evaluate the effect of the intervention for institutional purposes,but also to add to the body of knowledge concerning curriculum designs to promote globalcompetence.

In terms of research design, the population of primary interest for this comparative studyconsists of students enrolled on the International Plan. Comparison group 1 includes students

who undertake international experiences, such as study abroad, but are not enrolled on theInternational Plan. Additional complexity arises in that students may undertake one, two ormore elements of the International Plan (for example, study abroad) without being enrolledon the plan. This further supports the notion of having the ability to independently assess theimpact of each component of the plan. Comparison group two consists of students who donot participate in any elements of study abroad or the International Plan. As far as is feasible,comparison group 2 will be matched on demographic and performance variables with studentsin the International Plan, as well as with those students in comparison group 1.

To facilitate meaningful overall program evaluation and assessment of student learningwhile ensuring our ability to differentially measure the impact of each component of the

International Plan, a mixed methods design will be used, as advocated by the AmericanCouncil on Education (2005). We plan to utilize an array of assessment methods, such asenrolment and completion, student demographic and performance data, pre/post-internationalexperience questionnaires, internship supervisor evaluations, student and alumni surveys,comparative evaluation of senior design projects within the discipline, standardized tests of foreign languagecompetence, standardizedinventories of intercultural competence and reflec-tive essays on participants’ experiences and learning. The assessment schema is presented intable 2.

Limited baseline information for the International Plan comes from a recent large-scalestudy of baccalaureate alumni outcomes at Georgia Tech (Ludlum 2005). Nearly one-quarter(24.3%) of the 1,401 responding alumni indicated they had participated in an internationalexperience as an undergraduate at Georgia Tech. International experience participants ratedtheir undergraduate preparation significantly higher than non-participants in four relevant skillareas: the ability to practice their discipline in different social or cultural settings; the abilityto exercise leadership skills; the ability to resolve interpersonal conflict within a group orteam; the ability to converse in a foreign language within the context of their profession.Thus, we enter into the International Plan with a certain degree of measured expectation thatit will have a positive impact on student learning within the learning outcomes desired (seetable 3).

For all analyses conducted of the International Plan, the first year of measurement will helpestablish further baselines against which gains may be measured. We expect this multifaceted

group comparison evaluation design to provide research-based evidence of the effect of inter-national study and experiences for engineering students and, by so doing, to add substantivelyto the dialogue on global competence in engineering education.




Table 2. Assessment schema for the International Plan.

Participation goals, student learningoutcomes, programme objectives Assessment methods Performance criteria

Participation goals• Student participation Registration and participation

counts by semester100 students, FY06200 students, FY07250 students, FY08300 students, FY09300 students, FY10

• Graduate placement Exit survey, commencementsurvey, alumni andemployer surveysa

To be determined pendingcollection of appropriatedata

Second language proficiency

• Communicate in a second language Pre-/post-experience compe-tency tests administeredby School of ModernLanguagesb

Survey of employers of internsa

Self-report on post-experiencesurvey

Post-international experiencereflective essay

Comparative global knowledge

• Demonstrate knowledge about cultures withina global and comparative context

Completion of required globaleconomics and internationalaffairs coursework andportfolios of course projects

Previous information andresults from the first yearof plan operation will beused as a baseline. Whereavailable, previous surveydata may also be used in

determining a baseline.The exception is languagetesting. Students choosingto use English during theirinternational residencyexperience must attainthe ACTFL proficiencyIntermediate Mid, and thosechoosing to use their secondlanguage during theirinternational experiencemust attain the ACTFLproficiency of IntermediateHigh

• Demonstrate knowledge of global issues,processes, trends, and systems

Pre-/post-internationalexperience questionnaire

•

Demonstrate knowledge of at least one otherculture, nation, or region, such as beliefs,values, perspectives, practices, and products


Intercultural assimilation

• Readily use second language skills and/orknowledge of other cultures to extend theiraccess to information, experiences andunderstanding

Standardized inventory of intercultural competence

• Convey an appreciation for different culturesin terms of language, art, history, etc.


• Interact comfortably with persons in a differentcultural environment and be able to seekout further international or interculturalopportunities



Global disciplinary practice

• Use cultural frames of reference and alternateperspectives to think critically and solveproblems within the discipline in the contextof at least one other culture, nation, or region.


Senior design projects andpresentations will beevaluated using appropriaterubrics

• Collaborate professionally with persons of different cultures, and function effectively inmulti-cultural work environments.

Intercultural sensitivity

•Accept cultural differences and tolerate culturalambiguity


• Comfortably assimilate within other cultures Post-international experiencereflective essay


aThese instruments are already in use and supported by the Office of Assessment.bAll students electing for the second language option will be tested upon return from their international experience as part of therequirements for the International Plan designation. However, only a sample of the students will be tested before their experience forpurposes of assessment.




Table 3. Differences in preparation by participation in an international experience.

Mean

Alumni survey items Participated Did not participate t Effect size

The ability to practice their discipline in differentsocial or cultural settings

3.23 3.02 3.17a 0.174

The ability to exercise leadership skills 3.48 3.28 2.94a 0.160The ability to resolve interpersonal conflict

within a group or team3.13 2.95 2.57b 0.140

The ability to converse in a foreign languagewithin the context of their profession

1.81 1.64 2.53b 0.139

Rating scale: 5 = very well prepared; 1 = not prepared.a P < 0.01.bP < 0.05.

5. Conclusion

Global competence is among the new skills and abilities needed for all graduates to liveand work knowledgeably and comfortably in a transnational economy and global society,especially for engineers. While there is broad agreement as to the need to better prepareengineers for global practice, there is much less agreement as to what skills and abilities defineglobal competence, what combination and duration of international education and experiencesbestinstilitandwhatmeansandmetricsshouldbeusedtojudgewhetherstudentshaveattainedit. This paper has presented a conceptual model to define it, a curriculum model to instil it andan assessment model to determine if graduates have attained it.

The conceptual model was based on five elements: (1) proficiency in a second language,(2) international coursework and (3) an immersive international experience which shouldbe combined in a coherent program that (4) ties the elements together and (5) integratesthem within the student’s major. This conceptual model is currently being implemented ina curricular program known as the International Plan. The program is open to a number of majors at Georgia Tech, including engineering majors. As a part of that effort, a five-yearquasi-experimental research effort is now underway to assess the validity of the conceptualmodel and the curriculum plan. Because a significant number of students are now pursuingtraditional study and internship abroad opportunities at Georgia Tech (about 900 annually) andbecause of the comprehensive nature of the International Plan, a well-designed research effort

may begin to lend important insights into how to best instil global competence in students.Preparing students for the global society of the twenty-first century is a challenging task andone that it is an important and emerging area for further scholarly inquiry.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of many Georgia Tech faculty andstaff that helped to develop the International Plan, especially those who have served on theInternational Plan Steering Committee for the past two years.

Notes

1. An interesting exception is the effort now underway at the University of Minnesota(www.umabroad.umn.edu/).




2. Information about these programs may be found at the universities’ web sites: Iowa StateUniversity, www.las.iastate.edu/students/international/progdesc03.shtml; PennsylvaniaState University, www.psu.edu/bulletins/bluebook/major/inlst.htm; Purdue Univer-sity, www.ippu.purdue.edu/global_studies/index.cfm; University of Illinois, www.ece.

uiuc.edu/ugrad/international.html; University of Michigan, www.engin.umich.edu/ipe/

academicprograms/index.html; University of Minnesota, www.umabroad.umn.edu/; Uni-versity of Pittsburg, www.ucis.pitt.edu/global/undergrad_cert.html; University of RhodeIsland, www.uri.edu/iep/; Worcester Polytechnic Institute, www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/IGSD/.

References

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Recognition of the equivalency of accredited engi-neering education programmes leading to the engineering degree, Washington Accord , 2003 (Baltimore, MD:

ABET Inc.). Available online at: www.washingtonaccord.org (accessed 14 October 2005).Adelman, C., The New College Course Map and Transcript Files: Changes in Course-taking and Achievement,

1972–1993, 1999 (US Department of Education: Washington, DC).Akay, A., The renaissance engineer: educating engineers in the post-9/11 world. European Journal of Engineering

Education, 2003, 28(2), 145–150.Amadei, B., Engineering for the developing world. Bridge, 2004, 34(2), pp. 24–31.American Council on Education Working Group on International Learning, International Learning Goals, 2005

(American Council on Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Activities&CONTENTID=7919&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm(accessed11January2006).

Andersen, A., Preparing engineering students to work in a global environment to co-operate, to communicate and tocompete. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2005, 29(4), 549–558.

American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Engineering Education in a Changing World , 1994(American Society for Engineering Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.asee.org/resources/greenReport.cfm (accessed 11 January 2006).

Bettez, D.A. and Lineberry, G.T., Assessing engineering students’ study abroad experiences, in Proceedings, 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.

Bordogna, J., Making connections: the role of engineers and engineering education. Bridge, 1997, 27(1), 11–16.Borri, C., Reshaping the engineer for the 3rd millennium. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, 28(2),

137–138.Demetry, C. and Vaz, R.F., International project experiences: Assessing impact on students’ educational and personal

development, in Proceedings, 32nd ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2002, p. F4B–13.DeutscherAkademischerAustauschdienst (DAAD), Increasing Mobility of U.S. Engineering Students into Germany,

2002 (German Academic Exchange Service: New York). Available online at: www.daad.org (accessed).Dwyer, M.M. and Peters, C.K., The benefits of study abroad: new study confirms significant gains. Transitions

Abroad ,2004,Vol.XXXVII,No.5.March/April.Availableonline at: www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/

magazine/0403/benefits_study_abroad.shtml (accessed 14 October 2005).Evans, J. and Lelik, M., Assessing student outcomes in study abroad programs: are students gaining intercultural

skills?, in Association for Institutional Research 2005 Forum, 31 May, 2005.

Georgia Institute of Technology, Strengthening the Global Competence and Research Experiences of UndergraduateStudents: A Quality Enhancement Plan, 2005. Available online at: www.assessment.gatech.edu/SACS/QEP/(accessed).

Gerhardt, L. A. and Martin, M., The global engineering education exchange programme – a worldwide initiative, inProceedings, 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999, pp. 1167-10–1167-13.

Gray, K.S., 2002, Assessing study abroad’s effect on an international mission – Missouri Southern StateCollege. Change, 2002, May. Available online at: www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_3_34/ai_85465153/print (accessed 14 October 2005).

Grose, T.K., Survival of the fittest. PRISM , 1999, 8(9), 12–16.Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J. and Wiseman, R., Measuring intercultural sensitivity: the intercultural development

inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2003, 27(4), 421–444.Hayward, F., Internationalization of Higher Education, preliminary status report, 2000 (American Council on

Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.acenet.edu/bookstore/ (accessed 14 October 2005).Hunter, W.D., Got global competency? International Educator , 2004, Vol. XIII, No. 2, Spring. Available online

at: www.nafsa.org/content/ProfessionalandEducationalResourses /Publications/IE/hunter.pdf (accessed 14October 2005).

Loftus, M., A new era. Prism, 2003, 12(8), 26–29.Lohmann, J.R. and Rollins, H.R., Integrating international competence into baccalaureate degrees, in Proceedings,

34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2004 (University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA). Availableonline at: fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2004/ (accessed 14 October 2005).




Ludlum, J., Baccalaureate Alumni Survey: 1998–2001 Degree Recipients, unpublished report, 2005 (Georgia Instituteof Technology Office of Assessment: Atlanta, GA).

Malone,M.E.,Rifkin,B.,Christian,D.andJohnson,D.E.,Attaininghighlevelsofproficiency:challengesforlanguageeducation in the United States, in Proceedings, Conference on Global Challenges and U.S. Higher Education,2003 (Duke University: Durham, NC).

McGraw, D., Getting down to e-business. PRISM , 2000a, 10(2), 20–24.McGraw, D., A different direction. PRISM , 2000b, 9(5), 22–24.McGraw, D., Putting it into perspective. PRISM , 2004, 13(5), 24–29.Panitz, B., Opening new doors. PRISM , 1998, 8(3), 20–25.Peters,C.,Careerimpact. Abroad View Magazine,2004,1September.Availableonlineat:www.AbroadViewMagazine.

com (accessed 14 October 2005).Ratchford, J.T., Science, Technology, and U.S. Foreign Relations. Bridge, 1998, 28(2), 17–23.Rollins, H.A., Lohmann, J., Long, W. and Griffin, P., Integrating international competence into baccalaureate degrees

in science and technology disciplines, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council for International

Education Exchange (CIEE), Santa Fe, NM, 10–13 November, 2004.Sheppard, K., Dominick, P. and Aronson, Z., Preparing engineering students for the new business paradigm of

international teamwork and global orientation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2004, 20(3),475–483.

Shuman, L.J., Besterfield-Sacre, M. and McGourty, J., The ABET ‘professional skills’– can they be taught? can theybe assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 2005, 94(1), 41–55.

Sideli, K., SECUSSA/IIE electronic sampling results: Survey #2: Outcomes assessment and study abroad pro-grammes: commentary on the results of a SECUSSA/IIE electronic sampling. International Educator , 2001,10(2), 30. Available online at: www.secussa.nafsa.org/samplingresults2.html (accessed 14 October 2005).

Socíeté Européenne pour la Formation des Ingénieurs (SEFI), The European higher education area. In Joint

Declaration of the European Ministers of Education, 1999 (SEFI: Brussels, Belgium). Available online at:www.ntb.ch/SEFI/bolognadec.html (accessed 14 October 2005).

Soeiro, A., International accreditation activities, in Proceedings, Enhancement of the Global Perspective for Engi-

neering Students by Providing an International Experience, 2003 (Engineering Conferences International: NewYork).

Sutton, R. and Rubin, D., Learning outcomes assessment of studying abroad: initial results from a system-wideinitiative, in Council on International Educational Exchange Conference, 2002.

Swearengen, J.C., Barnes, S., Coe, S., Reinhardt, C. and Subramanian, B., Globalization and the undergraduate

manufacturing engineering curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, 91(2), 255–261.University of Minnesota, Global Campus Study Abroad Curriculum Integration, 2004 (University of Minnesota:Minneapolis, MN).Available online at: www.umabroad.umn.edu/ci/stats/evaluation.html (accessed14 October2005).

Wheeler, B.C., The state of business education: preparation for the past? Selections, 2001, 14(2).Wulf, W., Changing nature of engineering. Bridge, 1997, 27(2). Available online at: http://www.nae.edu/nae/

bridgecom.nsf /weblinks/NAEW-4NHMBD?OpenDocument (accessed 11 January 2006).Zhang, C. and Li, G., Student perspectives on the impact of study abroad, poster presented at the Association for

Institutional Research 2005 Forum, San Diego, CA, 29 May, 2005.

About the authors

Jack R. Lohmann is Associate Provost and Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineeringat the Georgia Institute of Technology. His principal responsibilities include the institutionaldevelopment, review and accreditation of the Georgia Tech’s academic programs. He hasalso held appointments at the National Science Foundation, the University of Michigan, theUniversity of Southern California and l’École Centrale Paris in France. He is editor of the Journal of Engineering Education published by the American Society for Engineering Edu-cation, a licensed Professional Engineer and a Fellow of the Institute of Industrial Engineersand the American Society for Engineering Education.

Howard A. Rollins Jr is Director of International Education and Professor of Psychology at

Georgia Institute of Technology. His principal responsibilities include providing leadership toa staff devoted to facilitating study abroad opportunities for Georgia Tech students, assistinginternational students to obtain visas and adjust to the academic and social life of GeorgiaTechand fostering initiatives to further internationalize Georgia Tech. Dr Rollins also providesleadership to the university in support of its efforts to develop international initiatives both on




campus and around the world. He formerly held various faculty and administrative appoint-ments at Emory University, including Executive Director of the Institute for Comparative andInternational Studies.

J. Joseph Hoey is Director of the Office of Assessment at Georgia Institute of Technology. Hisprincipal responsibilities center on the assessment and evaluation of academic programs, edu-cational initiatives and funded projects, as well as on regional accreditation. He has previouslyheld appointments at North Carolina State University and in the North Carolina CommunityCollege System. He is past president of the Southern Association for Institutional Researchand serves as both a presenter and site evaluator for the Southern Association of Colleges andSchools Commission on Colleges.

defining, developing and assessing

Documents