u.s. engineering education for the 21 st century “how could/should asee contribute?!’
DESCRIPTION
Highlights of a Major, Multi-year ASEE Initiative Leah H. Jamieson Purdue University Jack R. Lohmann Georgia Institute of Technology …and 105 colleagues IEEE Educational Activities Board Atlanta, Georgia Saturday, February 13, 2010. U.S. engineering education for the 21 st century - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Highlights of a Major,
Multi-year ASEE
Initiative
Leah H. JamiesonPurdue University
Jack R. Lohmann
Georgia Institute of Technology
…and 105 colleagues
IEEE Educational Activities Board
Atlanta, Georgia
Saturday, February 13, 2010
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
U.S. engineering education for the 21st century“How could/should ASEE contribute?!’
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
My objective today
• Share highlights of the report
• Tell you where we’re headed
• Hear from you!
My objective today
• Share highlights of the report
• Tell you where we’re headed
• Hear from you!
Discussion & Planning
“Year of Dialogue”
Two-Phase Project
Phase 1 ReportJune 2009
Phase 2 (Final) Report
Phase 2 Report Fall 2010
105 contributors 100’s! 1,000’s?
www.asee.org/about/board/committees/CCSSIE
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
a universal and fundamental question……and the report’s major recommendation
Q: “How can we create an environment in which many exciting, engaging, and empowering engineering educational innovations can flourish and make a significant difference in educating future engineers?”
A: “Create and sustain a vibrant engineering academic culture for scholarly and systematic educational innovation — just as we have for technological innovation — to ensure that the U.S. engineering profession has the right people with the right talent for a global society.”
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
a foundational premisehow we teach is as important as what we teach
Pedagogy cannot make up for a lack of content — but inattention to pedagogy can seriously compromise learning
High-quality learning environments are the result of attention to both content and how people learn
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
the focus of the report
Integrating what we want in the “next generation” engineer with
what we know about how people learn into a field of inquiry and practice focused on
engineering learning
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
who, what, and how
Most reports emphasize “what” needs to change (e.g., topics to cover, experiences to offer)
“Who” should drive the change and “how” have not been as fully discussed — but they largely determine how quickly and how well “what” occurs and how it is sustained
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
“how” educational innovation looks today
(Engineering) education
researchers
Engineering education
practitioners
How do we bridge the divide and build capacity?
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
a proposed model
identifies and motivates
which lead tothat results in
which help improve
AnswersInsights
Educational Practice
Questions
Ideas
Educational Research
“Challenge-based Instruction in an
Introductory Biomedical
Engineering Course”(p. 8)
More than “proposed,” used in practice by leading scholars
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
building capacity and connecting the communities
Engineering education innovation depends on a vibrant community of scholars and practitionersworking in collaborationto advance the frontiers ofknowledge and practice…and it also depends on support –• Adequate fiscal resources
• Appropriate facilities
• Reputable journals
• Highly-regarded conferences
• Prestigious recognitions
AnswersInsights
Educational Practice
Questions
Ideas
Educational Research
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
“who” should drive change?engineering education depends on many stakeholders, but…
…engineering faculty and administrators are key
– they determine the content of the program
– they decide how it is delivered
– they shape the environment in which it is offered
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
encouraging, supporting, and empowering faculty
It’s the reward system.
Nah, duh!
• No doubt, we need to continue to assure evaluation processes are transparent and they do reward educational innovation
• However, the proposed model has many of the same metrics used to evaluate faculty success in scholarly and systematic technological innovation
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
The role of faculty members is not to impart knowledge — it is to design learning environments that support the process of knowledge acquisition
• Strengthen career-long professional development — starting with doctoral students
• Create supportive environments (e.g., R&D units, resources, HR practices)
• Form broader collaborations — engineering education innovation is a cross-disciplinary endeavor
more specifically
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
An examination of recent literature, program announcements, conference themes, etc. make clear that a considerable amount of attention is being directed at making our engineering programs more —
•engaging (e.g., active learning)
•relevant (e.g., experiential, real-world)
•welcoming (studies show repeatedly that the most effective way to improve persistence is to improve the quality of the learning experience)
integrating “what” we know about engineering with “what” we know about learning
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
for those ready to get started
Some suggested actions (pp. 21-26)
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
Phase 2 — “catalyzing a conversation”feedback from the broader engineering community
Michigan State will be among them!
www.asee.org
Invited sample of engineering programs and engineering education-related organizations
Web site for individual comments from anyone, open until June 2010
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
Random 100 colleges and 200 designated departments selected randomly
Focused 55 “Top 20” colleges and 110 undesignated departments by selected attributes (e.g., size, degrees, diversity)
a research studyheart of the feedback — two samples of engineering programs
Research Team
Barbara M. Olds, ChairColorado School of Mines
Maura J. Borrego, Vice ChairVirginia Tech
Mary Besterfield-SacreUniversity of Pittsburgh
Lori BreslowMassachusetts Institute of Technology
Monica F. CoxPurdue University
Lorraine N. FlemingHoward University
Lisa R. LattucaPennsylvania State University
James W. PellegrinoUniversity of Illinois at Chicago
Sarah K.A. PfatteicherUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
Research Team
Barbara M. Olds, ChairColorado School of Mines
Maura J. Borrego, Vice ChairVirginia Tech
Mary Besterfield-SacreUniversity of Pittsburgh
Lori BreslowMassachusetts Institute of Technology
Monica F. CoxPurdue University
Lorraine N. FlemingHoward University
Lisa R. LattucaPennsylvania State University
James W. PellegrinoUniversity of Illinois at Chicago
Sarah K.A. PfatteicherUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
a three-part surveyfaculty, chairs, deans
Faculty Committee
Q1. Most compelling parts of the report; specifically, top three priorities?
Q2. Principal opportunities/challenges to achieve priorities?
12 “check the box” statements
Chair and Dean
Q: Principal opportunities/challenges to help create a culture of scholarly and systematic educational innovation in…
…your department? (chair)
…your college? (dean)
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
Phase 1
Phase 2
[ Title: TBD ]
A final report summarizing the feedback (perhaps even consensus!) on how best to proceed to rapidly to create and sustain a culture of scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education
a synthesis of broad community input
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
your turnbe a part of Phase 2
How can and the EAB help advance the report’s ideas?
1. Who stands out in your mind as stellar examples of scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education?
2. How can the cycle of educational practice and research be practiced more widely?
3. What can IEEE/EAB do to advance a culture of scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education?
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
“think - pair - share”
Think• Pick one question • Think for a moment, then write your thoughts on the card
Pair• Turn to your neighbor, introduce yourself• Talk about your responses
Share • As a group, we’ll share responses• Turn in your cards to be part of the Phase 2 input
IEEE Educational Activities Board2010
your turnbe a part of Phase 2
How can and the EAB help advance the report’s ideas?
1. Who stands out in your mind as stellar examples of scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education?
2. How can the cycle of educational practice and research be practiced more widely?
3. What can IEEE/EAB do to advance a culture of scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education?
Thank you!Report and
survey form for individual responsesmay be found at:www.asee.org
(then look in the upper right-hand corner for “CCSSIEE”)
orwww.asee.org/about/board/committees/CCSSIE
(direct link)