Title (NSF Number): Best Practices Summary Report (NSF 98-92) Date: July 10, 1998 BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY REPORT ENGINEERING EDUCATION INNOVATORS CONFERENCE April 7-8, 1997 Sheraton National Hotel Arlington, VA Sponsored by Engineering Education and Centers Division Directorate for Engineering National Science Foundation Arlington, Virginia in cooperation with SUCCEED Engineering Education Coalition Associate Director Robert J. Coleman Best Practices Sessions Chair _______________________________________________________________________________ PREFACE For over a dozen years, the Engineering Education and Centers Division and its predecessors have been promulgating culture change and systemic reform in engineering research and education. One of the most powerful tools in this endeavor is to make connections and integrate. Thus, when my NSF colleagues responsible for the various programs represented in this conference were planning their respective grantees meetings, we all quickly recognized the opportunity and desirability of combining the separate efforts. We did so not for the sake of building a huge attendance, but to provide a forum for the various experts and scholars to bounce ideas off one another from the different perspectives emphasized by the various programs, a vital element of innovation. Therefore, it is not an accident or coincidence that in this conference we have generic sessions and workshops crossing programmatic boundaries to share the best practices in partnering, multimedia courseware, distance learning, evaluation, dissemination, institutionalization, innovation, accessibility, and the like. These practices and practitioners represent an enormous body of assets in engineering education and educational technology. Conferees were invited to explore them as much as possible during the conference and stay connected with one another afterwards, regardless of program affiliation. Engineers are at the forefront of creating and developing enabling technology for future education. Ironically, many of our faculty have not embraced its use to the extent expected. While cost and other factors may have played a role, perhaps the greatest barrier has been the natural resistance to change. To those who may still be in a wait-and-see mode, we have one message: For better or for worse, change is here to stay; not the least is the way students learn and process information. We must change along with them or risk losing our brightest to other professions. Since we believe that engineering is the enabler and crucial link between scientific discoveries and a strong economy and national defense, not having enough of the best people in engineering could be devastating to our nation for a long time to come. With the advent of powerful, inexpensive, and universally available high performance computing, broad-bandwidth communication, and multimedia technology, together with the pedagogical output of NSF's programs in education and curriculum development, we are at a confluence in history when all the potential of advances in learning technologies and methodologies can be realized to create significant new intellectual capital. We convened this conference to serve as a catalyst, a bridge to link the potential solutions to the needs, and as a venue for the community to take stock, to display their innovations, and to share ideas and experiences. To be sure, not all innovations in education are technology-based. Many are intellectual, procedural, and even organizational, such as discoveries in cognitive sciences, evaluation methodologies, ways to collaborate with industry and with one another, how to take innovations from the laboratory to the classroom, etc. Regardless, all of the innovations being explored in this conference are part of the process of keeping engineering education at the cutting edge. As in any human endeavor for advancement and change, some innovations will be adopted outright, while others will fall by the wayside. But most will contribute fragments of ideas and techniques that will be modified and adapted, blending together in the process of advancement. A thousand cherry blossoms have indeed been blooming. If I may stretch the metaphor, I am delighted to see that we are now beginning to extract their essences and distill them into perfume. And we can say with confidence that this is only the beginning of the process. We fully expect that the many different lines of discussion and the many issues identified as needing additional efforts will spark future projects and conferences, such as this one, as we continue to make rapid strides to improve engineering education. I thank the conferees for making the effort to come. I believe that many of them were richly rewarded with new ideas and enthusiasm, and I hope that readers of this report will catch some of both. Marshall M. Lih Division Director Engineering Education and Centers Directorate for Engineering National Science Foundation _______________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS INTRODUCTION OPENING REMARKS ENGINEERING EDUCATION FOR THE 21st CENTURY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES NEXT-GENERATION ENGINEERING: INNOVATION THROUGH INTEGRATION BEST PRACTICES WORKSHOPS BUILDING EFFECTIVE INDUSTRY/ACADEME PARTNERSHIPS FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION INNOVATION BEST PRACTICES IN MULTIMEDIA COURSEWARE DELIVERING ENGINEERING EDUCATION VIA DISTANCE LEARNING BUILDING EFFECTIVE DISSEMINATION PROCESSES INSTITUTIONALIZING ENGINEERING EDUCATION INNOVATIONS SPECIAL TOPICS WORKSHOPS CASE STUDIES WORKSHOP ON EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION PROJECTS EFFECTIVE PROCESSES TO GIVE ENGINEERING EDUCATORS EASY ACCESS TO QUALITY-REVIEWED ELECTRONIC COURSEWARE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS LIST OF EXHIBITORS LIST OF PARTICIPANTS _______________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION Robert J. Coleman Best Practices Sessions Chair Associate Director, SUCCEED Coalition University of North Carolina at Charlotte Welcome to the first NSF Engineering Education Innovators' Conference! The conference has as its aim cross-fertilization and sharing, both of ideas and products, among the engineering education components of several NSF-sponsored programs. The invited participants come from: o Combined Research-Curriculum Development Program o Engineering Education Coalitions Program o Engineering Education Scholars Workshops o Engineering Research Centers Program o Technology Reinvestment Project. There is also participation by the CAREER and GOALI programs, as well as by various representatives of NSF leadership. The conference is a first effort to identify and explore themes and possible areas of interaction among these diverse programs. I would like to emphasize the word first. I hope that you take away from this conference an idea of what is happening in other programs, the common problems faced by all in providing innovations in engineering education, and a knowledge of what has worked and what hasn't. I hope this will lead to a sharing of ideas across program lines and a follow-up to strengthen those ties. The conference follows several formats. The first day includes a number of "Best Practices" workshops intended to identify what is working among the various programs and to provide guidelines for NSF in institutionalizing some of these practices. In addition, there is a session on evaluation, using case studies to present and illustrate different methods for evaluating engineering education projects. There is also a session on current efforts to establish and maintain a user-friendly system for storage and retrieval of quality-reviewed electronic courseware. At the end of the first day, the chairs of all these workshops will summarize the highlights of their meetings in a plenary session for all conference attendees. There are "interactive-poster" sessions at lunch and in the evening of the first day. These were selected by NSF program managers to display and disseminate mature products and to highlight achievements and efforts. The second day of the conference (not represented in this report) is given over to program-specific activities; there are several different formats for those sessions. The highlight of the second day will be a luncheon address by Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Acting Deputy Director of NSF. At this time, I would like to introduce Dr. Marshall Lih, Division Director for the Engineering Education and Centers Division, who will recognize the various NSF program managers and coordinators and make some opening remarks regarding the theme of our conference, innovation in engineering education. _______________________________________________________________________________ OPENING REMARKS Marshall M. Lih Director, Engineering Education and Centers Division Directorate for Engineering National Science Foundation Distinguished Guests and Esteemed Colleagues: It is a great honor for me to stand before you this morning. I'd like to begin this conference by asking some questions. We all know that we are in the midst of a systemic and comprehensive engineering education reform, but what for? The answer seems simple enough: o to educate better engineers, or o to better educate engineers, or o to engineer better education but, regardless how we say it, better in what way? Well, many of us have been going around saying that we need more holistic engineers. Yes, but why "holistic"? What can holistic engineers do that not-so-holistic ones cannot do? Let us first take a look at what engineers have achieved in this century. Figure 1 shows just some random examples that readily come to mind. Of course many of them have been built on the discoveries of our scientist colleagues and with the collaboration of many other technical and non technical people. However, when it comes to innovating, creating, developing, designing, building, fabricating, or manufacturing them in a way that the common people can afford and enjoy, engineers have been unique, unequaled, and indispensable. (I am afraid that my bias is already beginning to show.) Looking ahead to the next century, or even millennium, can we expect the same kind of contributions from engineers? Of course we can; there is no doubt about it; because who else but engineers can accomplish such awesome wonders? However, please also let me suggest to you that we have an even higher and broader calling than simply making the next technological breakthrough. In fact, whether we even have the opportunity to make that breakthrough depends a great deal on who sits in the boardrooms and executive suites of our corporations, or perhaps even of the government. If they are populated mainly by people who have no understanding of engineering and technology, but, rather, are quick to close down their R&D laboratories just to make their next quarterly financial report look good, and collect big fat bonuses in the process, you can be sure that there won't be many more breakthroughs coming down the pike. Figure 1 Engineering Achievements & Contributions in The 20th Century: Some Random Examples --------------------------------------------------------------------- o Transportation - Vehicles and Infrastructures o Space Exploration and Satellite Technology o Food and Pharmaceuticals o Biomedical Technology and Prosthetics o Materials, Synthetics, and Petrochemicals o Energy and Power Systems o Micro/Opto-Electronics and Entertainment o Computation and Telecommunication What Will We Do For An Encore In The 21st Century? More of the Same? --------------------------------------------------------------------- As we enter an era where other nations are catching up with us or even surpassing us in many areas of technology, we can no longer employ brute force and try to steamroll over everyone else, because that simply won't work anymore. We have to play smart, to employ strategies -- strategies that are soundly based on technological assessment and forecasts, strategies that open the way for continual technological innovations, because those were what made our industries strong in the first place. That requires a special breed of engineer, and other professionals with engineering in their knowledge base, who can see both the forests and the trees, who can both labor on the nitty-gritty as well as have a systems view of things, who can map out corporate strategies just like generals in a military campaign (see Figure 2). We need visionaries who can see several steps ahead of our rivals. We need people who know when and how to acquire technology to strengthen our own, and when and how to block our rivals from reaching the goal first. This is just one example of the characteristics of a holistic engineer. There are many more reasons why we need such holistic engineering-based professionals; but I won't preach to the choir here. Please let me simply urge you, as we deliberate on the various issues and innovations, and in our day-to-day interaction with our students, to keep in mind that we need people who can lay the bricks as well as those who have a more global and longer view of things, who know what they are laying the bricks for (see Figure 3). We like to think that we are still getting the smartest young people into engineering, but many of them will not be coming any more if or when they get the impression that engineers just work for big corporations which are controlled by non technical people. Many of these smart young people naturally aspire to be such captains of the industry, and they probably see more promising paths to their goals through such fields as law and finance. If we engineers are smart enough to invent devices, products, processes, and systems, we should certainly be smart enough to reinvent ourselves to lead our corporations. One thing I have found rather ironic is that many of our foreign competitors who have been catching up with us thought that they were emulating us by putting technological issues high on their agendas and placing their engineers in visible and even revered positions. In Figure 4, you can readily see the snowballing effect of their best people doing great things which in turn attracts more of the best people. So let us give our students the best education and training possible (Figure 5), in turning out both thinkers and doers, both analysts and "synthesysts," both leaders and followers, both planners and implementors, and above all, visionaries who can integrate, which, as you will hear later, holds the key to innovation. Let us inspire our students to greatness by imparting some of the necessary leadership qualities (see Figure 6) to our students. This is not too much to attempt, as I know many of you personally to be caring nurturers, successful risk-takers, "hopeless" dreamers, and tough task-masters with high standards. Figure 2 Technology Strategic Planning --------------------------------------------------------------------- o A holistic approach enabling corporate planners to "see" their own technologies and those of competitors as if on a chessboard o Enables planners to see how technologies can be both a threat and a resources simultaneously and to maneuver them offensively and defensively o Acquisition - Technology alliances (transfer mechanisms) and counter-alliances (blockage mechanisms) o Utilization - "Frontal Attacks", "encirclement", etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 3 Are We Producing Bricklayers or Cathedral Builders --------------------------------------------------------------------- o Who will be devising crucial future strategies for the industry? o Who will be making hire and fire decisions for our corporations? - Impacting engineers and the image of engineering o Who will be leading the society and country in this technological age? We Need Both! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 4 Our Formidable Foreign Competitors (Including Fast-Rising Countries) --------------------------------------------------------------------- o Recognize the important role of engineering and technology in economic development o Have high regard for the capability, dedication, and contributions of engineers in various arenas o Have placed engineers in prestigious or visible positions throughout the society o Encourage their brightest youngsters, by word, deed, and/or example, to study to be engineers --------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 5 Education vis-a-vis Training --------------------------------------------------------------------- Largely Largely To think and create* To do* To do right things To do things right To lead To follow Long term impact Immediate result Broadly-based Narrowly focussed *Plan, integrate, discover, design, etc; to develop conceptual skills for thinking beyond the prevailing paradigm **Implement, build, process, etc.; to develop contextual skills to enhance immediate performance Both Are Needed! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 6 Leadership Quality --------------------------------------------------------------------- o Caring more than other think is wise; o Risking more than others think is safe; o Dreaming more than other think is practical; and o Expecting more than others think is possible. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 7 A Leader.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Envisions Evangelizes Exemplifies Encourages Empowers Enables Energizes Evaluates --------------------------------------------------------------------- Let us energize our students with many of the "E-words" listed in Figure 7, as I know is being done through many of the programs and projects represented in this conference. Let us encourage them to aim high, even though many engineers are by nature modest and low-key. Perhaps we even need to change the engineer's personality a bit, so that in addition to a sense of mission, they will be visionary as well as practical, and so that they will be more passionate about their ideas and their work rather than being always so cool, calm, and collected. Many of our graduates may go on to do things other than technical work but that is all right, and in fact should even be encouraged, because we need lawyers, economists, doctors, financiers, etc., with engineering backgrounds (see Figure 8). Indeed, I have seen how well this has worked in some of those fast-rising nations I referred to, where every place you turn you encounter engineers disguised as bankers, journalists, mayors, legislators, cabinet ministers, and the like -- not as rare exceptions, but as everyday occurrences. Just in case you think such an idea seems foreign, take a look at our military academies and institutes and see how many good leaders they have produced -- not just for fighting wars, but for the country in general. Engineering schools can and should do no less. So let this be our secret agenda for the 21st century -- even at the risk of sounding somewhat militaristic myself: To educate and equip engineers to take over our industry and then infiltrate our society and country -- because we know that engineers represent the forces of good and we are among the most intelligent and honest folks around. With this I wish you a successful and rewarding conference, and hopefully many more to come. Figure 8 What Else Can Engineers Do? Plenty! (Examples of "Unconventional" Careers) --------------------------------------------------------------------- o Business and management o Finance, investment, and accounting o Economics and marketing o Public and military service o Medicine and health care delivery o Architecture, art, and music o Etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ Keynote Address ENGINEERING EDUCATION FOR THE 21st CENTURY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES(See endnote 1) Denice D. Denton Dean, College of Engineering University of Washington This is an exciting and challenging time in higher education. Some view the ongoing reductions in federal resources as the death knell for high quality academic research. However, with challenges come opportunities. It is possible that we can use the external forces (e.g., reduced federal and state funding and increasing oversight by the public and legislatures) as an opportunity to sharpen our thinking and focus on our mission and goals in the academy and how best to achieve them. In times of rapid change, it is essential to have in place an agile and adaptive system that can respond appropriately to internal and external forces. Engineers excel at the design, analysis, and improvement of complex systems; and education is certainly such a system. As engineering faculty, therefore, we are in an excellent position to play leadership roles in generating a campus-wide response to the challenges that face us. The key components of the education system in the U.S. are: (1) the College of Engineering, (2) the rest of the University, and (3) External Partners (e.g., K-12, Industry, Government, Foundations, Other Countries). The primary system outputs are well-educated graduates of the university and high-quality research. This preliminary analysis can provide a framework with which to view the challenges and strategies for the future. ROLE OF THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING-CAMPUS LEADERSHIP Areas in which engineering faculty are well positioned to take on enhanced leadership roles campus-wide include: (1) Integration of Research and Teaching, (2) Campus-Wide Cooperation, (3) Focus on Student Learning and (4) Sophisticated Assessment Strategies. Integration of Research and Teaching Historically, engineering faculty have been major contributors to the research strength and economic health of this country. In order to succeed in coming decades, Colleges of Engineering will have to continue to be imaginative in pioneering new, often interdisciplinary, research directions which address societal needs. In parallel, we are challenged to do a better job of educating our students in a time in which resources are diminishing. To do both well, we need to be more effective in integrating the teaching and research components of our mission, as is increasingly recognized nationally. For over a decade, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has supported Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) which focus both on interdisciplinary research and on the integration of research and education. There are many other excellent examples of undergraduate participation in research in both independent study (e.g., NSF's Research Experiences for Undergraduates [REU] Program) and classroom-based activities. In addition, there is a national call to better integrate research and education in graduate programs. The NSF is in fact supporting a number of Summer Workshops for graduate students and beginning engineering faculty to encourage this integration. The experience gained from these efforts, as well the intrinsic nature of engineering research, should allow engineering faculty to be key contributors to campus-wide efforts to integrate research and education. In order to make this possible, we must develop facilities and infrastructure that better serve the dual mission. The Integrated Teaching Laboratory at the University of Colorado has some of the characteristics of such a facility. In addition, NSF has just released an announcement on "Recognition Awards for the Integration of Research and Education", an award that could be used to develop and enhance the campus infrastructure for such an integration. Campus-Wide Cooperation In a time of diminishing resources, we will have to be more imaginative in order to ensure the effective utilization of the research infrastructure on campus. In addition to more effective resource-sharing across campus (and between campuses), we will need to promote mechanisms for the multiple use of existing facilities. Engineers generally have expertise in teaming and collaborative efforts in which resources and facilities are shared (as in the ERCs) and can therefore provide leadership both in obtaining funding that requires collaboration and then in carrying out the work. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison recently was chosen as the site for the NSF-sponsored National Institute for Science Education (NISE). The ultimate goal of the NISE is to increase science, math, engineering and technology (SMET)literacy for all students from kindergarten to graduate school. This effort is a collaborative one involving dozens of faculty from the Colleges of Engineering, Letters and Science, Agriculture and Life Sciences, and Education. The NISE would not have been funded by NSF and will not be successful without continuing participation by all of these groups; and the intellectual leadership roles played by engineering faculty have been particularly notable. In response to the national focus on SMET literacy, engineers are playing increasingly significant roles in undergraduate education, both for majors and non-majors. The first year engineering design courses that are the hallmark of the ECSEL coalition may be an excellent venue for SMET literacy for all students. There are already examples of pre-service teachers taking these courses (e.g., ECSEL and UW-Madison). Engineering educators have identified the crucial role of the "gateway courses" (e.g., Calculus, Physics, and Chemistry) and are working with their colleagues to enhance the quality of those courses for all SMET majors (at Cornell, for example). Finally, campuses must consider an intellectual restructuring to better achieve the research and education missions in changing times. Engineers can again play a key role in the "re-engineering" of the campus organizational chart. Virtual departments are being experimented with and major restructuring has taken place on some campuses, notably at Nagoya in Japan. Our colleagues in business and industry are farther along in this process of "horizontal integration" and it is essential that we in the academy reflect on the structure of higher education to identify ways to make our organizations more effective. Focus on Student Learning There is a paradigm shift taking place in the academy, in which the focus is moving from faculty and their teaching to students and their learning. Efforts to improve student learning include a variety of innovative pedagogical approaches (including first-year design courses, cooperative learning, upper division interdisciplinary courses, technology-enhanced education, and distance learning). Engineering educators are leading the way in many of these areas. It is also important to recognize the role of students in this transformation process. In a number of locations, students are providing leadership in curricular change. Finally, with the focus on student learning comes the opportunity for research in engineering education. There is a new cadre of engineering faculty focusing their research efforts not exclusively on engineering but also on how students learn engineering. These efforts could be strengthened by greater collaboration with colleagues in education, cognitive science, and ethnography who are breaking important ground independently at present. The goals of such work include exploring the diversity of learning styles of engineering undergraduates, experimenting with the use of multimedia materials, and developing a theoretical framework for curriculum design. The results of this work will allow us to more effectively educate the engineer of the future. Sophisticated Assessment Strategies Most Colleges of Engineering have in place a mission statement, goals, and a strategic plan for achieving them. However, mechanisms for monitoring the progress toward these goals, and for assessing the contributions of individual departments and units to the overall mission, remain rather limited. Particularly in times of increasingly constrained resources, Colleges of Engineering will have to be more critical in prioritizing their goals (both in research and education) and in holding departments accountable for their performance. It is not that each unit needs to excel in all areas; rather, individual units should be able to develop their own strategic plans in the context of the broader mission and then devise self-assessment strategies to facilitate the desired outcome. Assessment strategies should not be onerous and bureaucratic in nature, but should be designed to serve the dual purposes of helping the unit to reach its goals more effectively and of helping the College as a whole to continuously fine tune its collective efforts. This approach is illustrated in the proposed ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 in which institutions seeking accreditation must have in place self-assessment structures to demonstrate that they are meeting their goals. There are a number of examples of powerful approaches to the evaluation of pedagogical innovations in engineering. In addition, any discussion of assessment must recognize the national call for modernization of the faculty rewards structure. A core issue here is how to assess the quality of the contribution to scholarship, broadly defined. One national model for the assessment of the faculty contribution to education is the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE)Peer Evaluation of Teaching Program. This effort involves faculty members (many of whom are engineers) from twelve institutions around the country. The AAHE program is developing a variety of strategies for assessment of classroom teaching and other components of the educational contributions of faculty. In order to successfully achieve continuous improvement in all of the areas described here, higher education must critically review the infrastructure currently in place for data collection for student, staff, and faculty records. At present, it ranges from 3x5 index card files at some institutions to sophisticated electronic data bases at others. But on the whole, we do not have in place the capability to do meaningful assessment of individual student and faculty performance, longitudinal studies of large cohorts of students to determine the impact of pedagogical innovations, or the contributions of departments and units to the broader research and education missions of the College. This situation must be remedied in order to effect the systemic approach outlined here. MEANINGFUL PARTNERSHIPS: K-12, INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT The higher education system interacts in a complex way with a variety of "external" partners whose energy and expertise must be more effectively harnessed to overcome the challenges we face. A few possible strategies are described here. K-12 and Two-Year Institutions These are the primary sources of our undergraduate student body. We must work with colleagues from these arenas to ensure the best possible education for all students and to effect a seamless web of educational experiences K-16. We are in a particularly critical period with respect to K-12, in that we must understand the impact of the national math (NCTM) and science (NRC, AAAS, and NSTA) standards. If and when the recommendations in the standards are effectively implemented, the character of first-year university students will be dramatically changed in turn requiring a change in our undergraduate curriculum. We in higher education should decide what role we wish to play in implementation of the K-12 standards, and not simply react to the external forces. We must also take a proactive role in articulation from high school or two-year institutions to the College of Engineering. It is essential to maintain open lines of communication (and programmatic efforts where necessary)with our colleagues in these arenas to ensure as transparent an interface as possible for students moving between these venues. Finally, we must actively define our role as engineering educators in the preparation of the future K-12 teacher work force. Colleges of Engineering are increasingly taking on responsibilities for the pre-service and in-service education of teachers (e.g., City Science at CCNY, ECSEL precollege outreach, and the NSF Teacher Collaborative at MIT), but there is much room for additional effort in this crucial endeavor. Industry Industry is a primary employer of our students and a major supporter of our research efforts. Engineering colleges have a strong history of working closely with industry through contract research programs, faculty consulting, student co-op and internship programs, and service by industrial colleagues on College advisory boards. We need to explore ways to enhance this already strong collaboration to face major challenges such as reduced federal funding for R&D, reduced state funding for education, reduced industrial support for in-house research efforts, and the ever-increasing costs of the research facilities essential to academic scholarship. The message from our industrial partners concerning desired attributes of engineering graduates is very clear. They include a good grasp of engineering science fundamentals, a good understanding of design and manufacturing, good communication skills, curiosity and a desire to learn for life, and a profound understanding of the importance of team work. In addition, employers are demanding that Colleges of Engineering graduate a diverse student body with respect to gender and ethnicity. We are being asked to ensure that we provide opportunities for all students to become successful engineers. Our collaboration with industry to create an educational environment that produces students with these attributes, while preserving strength in research, requires not only financial support but a real intellectual engagement. Such an engagement will require different strategies, approaches, and infrastructures from those that were successful in the past. Some examples of novel approaches include the cooperative efforts between higher education and the business community in Virginia to convince the legislature of the importance of higher education, and the NSF GOALI (Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaisons with Industry) program. Government Engineering academics historically have worked closely with the federal government by serving on national advisory boards in education and research and by taking on important "rotator" positions in the government for extended periods. Our interaction with state governments has not been as effective in the past. This was not particularly problematic in "fat" times, but with ever-decreasing state resources, it is important for us to interact effectively with our colleagues in the state and local governments to ensure the health of public-assisted higher education. We must explore new ways to work cooperatively to develop a shared vision and goals. This will require enhanced lines of communication with more regular interaction between university, government, and industry. A few successful examples such as the Virginia case cited above and the University of Colorado's student-driven "Adopt-a-Legislator" program exist, but campus leadership must be proactive in this area to ensure a successful and productive partnership. Additional key partners include other campuses, foundations, and other countries. The National Nanofabrication Users Network exemplifies a successful multi-institutional partnership supported by the NSF. Colleges of Engineering must also work with foundations and international colleagues to achieve shared goals in engineering education and research. SUMMARY The engineers we educate today will become the industrial employees, educators (pre-college and higher education), and researchers of the future. We must ensure that they are prepared to face and overcome the challenges (many of which we do not yet imagine) of the next century. In order to be effective in preparing our students for these increasingly complex roles, while continuing to provide the research leadership upon which economic competitiveness ultimately relies, we will have to be far more imaginative and ambitious intellectually. What is called for from us is the more effective application of the analytic skills which characterize our technical work to the social problems that face us. Engineers have been in a position to take on such leadership roles for quite some time, and the past decade has seen notable initiatives. Nevertheless the scope of what we can offer is far broader than that of our contributions to date. Engineering faculty can use this time of challenge not only to rethink engineering academia, but to play key leadership roles campus-wide in the restructuring of higher education. To quote from the Call To Action of the report of the NRC's Board on Engineering Education:(See Endnote 2) It is essential for each engineering institution to update itself within the context of an institutionally shared vision of the overall system and its goal -- a concept best expressed by the phrase, think globally, act locally." More specifically, the following actions are recommended for all institutions: o Conduct an institutional self-assessment o Redress imbalances in the faculty incentive system o Improve teaching methods and practices o Ensure that the curriculum supports the institution's strategic plan o Expand beneficial interactions and outreach. With these actions in mind, I would urge you all to Just Do It! _______________________________________________________________________________ NEXT-GENERATION ENGINEERING: INNOVATION THROUGH INTEGRATION Joseph A. Bordogna Acting Deputy Director National Science Foundation Historically, education for doing engineering has been a response to workforce needs for each new technology that appeared on the economic scene. But technology needs now change so quickly that engineering education must be more than a response; expertise in a single discipline, or technology, is no longer the Holy Grail for either a rewarded or rewarding career. The modern engineer needs to be educated to thrive through change; else, the engineer will become a commodity on the global market instead of society's enabler of wealth creation. The former is bought cheaply; the latter is more dearly valued. Engineers must be enabled to grasp the opportunities for innovation rather than simply contribute to enhancing productivity. Innovation results when new knowledge is applied to tasks which are new and different, yielding brand-new enterprises and delivering new products and services and new jobs. Innovation, especially through engineering enterprise, is at the core of a healthy economy. This element of innovativeness lies at the core of 21st-century engineering competence whether, for example, the project is a physically big, complex thing like a smart bridge or a tiny complex thing like a smart micromechanical system. Given this capability, what are the fresh career paths? Well, no longer do they layer directly on traditional disciplines. Rather, next-generation engineering career paths embrace complex systems issues. Examples include the issue of sustainability -- avoiding environmental harm, efficient use of energy and materials, and life cycle engineering; infrastructure systems renewal; micro/nano systems which are simultaneously small in size and large in capacity and are becoming ubiquitous in all product development; megasystems -- extraordinarily large, complex, and risky engineering projects and enterprises; living systems engineering -- a dimension beyond bioengineering; smart systems that learn from their environment and adjust operation and even repair themselves; and creative enterprise transformation generally. How do we prepare our students toward this end? By examining engineering education and exploring innovations based on integrative and holistic approaches, we can shed light on a host of key issues facing the entire science and engineering enterprise as we move into a remarkable era we might dub as "knowledge and distributed intelligence." What does the phrase "era of knowledge and distributed intelligence" really mean? I like to describe it as an era in which knowledge is available to anyone, located anywhere, at anytime, and an era in which power, information, and control have moved away from centralized systems to the individual. For example, over the span of just a few years, computers have moved from air conditioned rooms to closets to desktops and now to our laps and our pockets. So, too, has the scope and scale of telecommunications enhanced our intellectual, business, and politically connectivity. The number of Internet hosts leaped from only 200 in 1983 to 10 million in 1996 -- a 50,000(tm)fold increase! -- and remains on track to continue doubling annually, according to estimates from the Computing Research Association. Along with this explosive change in enhanced computing capability and computer communications, the past half century has witnessed a flurry of intense technological change at and across the boundaries of all fields of human endeavor. Indeed, technological change has been elevated to prime status as a driver of economic and cultural change. There is much evidence supporting the notion that technological innovation is central to wealth creation and economic growth. Many studies indicate that over the past 50 years, technological innovation has accounted for over one-third of U.S. economic growth. We must take this evidence seriously as we think strategically about the future, especially those of us who are concerned about creation of knowledge and its use. The renowned management guru, Peter Drucker, notes that the source of wealth is knowledge, a human activity that yields wealth in two essential ways, productivity and innovation. He points out(See endnote 3) that knowledge applied to tasks we already know how to do is productivity, while knowledge applied to tasks that are new and different is innovation -- the process of creating new enterprises and delivering new products and services. Within this context of productivity and innovation, engineers will play an ever more significant role. The true wealth of a nation resides in its human capital -- especially its engineering workforce. Engineers will develop the new processes and products and will create and manage new systems for civil infrastructure, manufacturing, health care delivery, information management, computer-communications, and so on. In general, they will put knowledge to work for society -- and in doing so, enable a huge potential for the private sector to create wealth and jobs. To be personally successful in today's world and simultaneously promote prosperity, engineers need more than first-rate technical and scientific skills. In an increasingly competitive world, engineers need to make the right decisions about how enormous amounts of time, money, and people are tasked to a common end. I like to think of the engineer as someone who not only knows how to do things right but also knows the right thing to do. This requires engineers to have a broad, holistic background. Since engineering itself is an integrative process, engineering education must focus on this end. For example, engineers must be able to work in teams and communicate well. They must be flexible, adaptable, and resilient. Equally important, they must be able to view their work from a systems approach, effecting connections, and within the context of ethical, political, international, environmental, and economic considerations. To better illuminate this, let's for a moment examine the innovation process as described by Drucker -- i.e. making and profiting from new things, as opposed to productivity, which implies simply making existing things more efficiently. A critical element in the innovation process is scientific inquiry, an analytic, reductionist process which involves delving into the secrets of the universe to discover new knowledge. The U.S. excels at this paradigm and must continue to sustain and nurture this rich intellectual infrastructure. The essence of engineering, on the other hand, is the process of integrating different forms of knowledge to some purpose. As society's "master integrators," engineers must have the functional background to provide leadership in nurturing the concurrent and interactive process of innovation and wealth creation. The engineer must be able to work across many different disciplines and fields -- and make the connections that will lead to deeper insights, more creative solutions, and getting things done. In a poetic sense, paraphrasing the words of Italo Calvino, the engineer must be adept at "correlating exactitude with chaos to bring visions into focus."(See endnote 4) Our engineering graduates must have added value in order to compete in today's global marketplace. Yes, added value resulting from state-of-the-art knowledge, but even more: added value garnered by probing the darkness in search of light; added value enabled by understanding risk; and added value gained through understanding and participating in the process of engineering throughout their educational experience. We all acknowledge that scientific and mathematical skills are necessary for professional success. An engineering student nevertheless must also experience the "functional core of engineering" -- the excitement of facing an open-ended challenge and creating something that has never been. Participating in the entire concurrent process of realizing a new product through integration of seemingly disparate skills is an educational imperative. This is the ultimate added value that enables wealth creation. In this sense, the 21st Century Engineer must have the capacity to: o design -- to meet safety, reliability, environmental, cost, operational, and maintenance objectives; o realize products; o create, operate, and sustain complex systems o understand the physical constructs and the economic, industrial, social, political, and international context in which engineering is practiced; o understand and participate in the process of research; o gain the intellectual skills needed for lifelong learning; Translating these concepts into a viable curriculum raises a core set of issues and challenges facing the academic enterprise. For starters, it requires examining the traditional reductionist approach to teaching and learning. The philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset, presaged today's challenge in engineering education when he wrote in his Mission of the University (1930): "The need to create sound syntheses and systemizations of knowledge...will call out a kind of scientific genius which hitherto has existed only as an aberration: the genius for integration. Of necessity this means specialization, as all creative effort does, but this time the [person] will be specializing in the construction of the whole." Most curricula require students to learn in unconnected pieces -- separate courses whose relationship to each other and to the engineering process are not explained until late in a baccalaureate education, if ever. Further, an engineering education is usually described in terms of a curriculum designed to present to students the set of topics engineers "need to know," leading to the conclusion that an engineering education is a collection of courses. The content of the courses may be valuable, but this view of engineering education appears to ignore the need for connections and for integration -- which should be at the core of an engineering education. And what of fundamentals? What are the basic constructs of the engineering process? What does the phrase "engineering is an integrative process" mean? In Figure 1, many of the components of a holistic baccalaureate engineering education are identified. The columnar arrangement and the row-by-row juxtaposition of terms give the appearance of contradiction. Moreover, the emphasis on the science base of engineering over the past half century embraced the elements in the left-hand column -- but often to the exclusion of those on the right. Figure 1 Components of a Holistic Baccalaureate Education --------------------------------------------------------------------- Vertical (In-Depth) Thinking Lateral (Functional) Thinking Abstract Learning Experimental Learning Reductionism - Fractionalization Integration - Connecting the Parts Develop Order Correlate Chaos Understand Certainty Handle Ambiguity Analysis Synthesis Research Design/Process/Manufacture Solve Problems Formulate Problems Develop Ideas Implement Ideas Independence Teamwork Technological - Scientific Base Societal Context/Ethics Engineering Science Functional Core of Engineering --------------------------------------------------------------------- A holistic baccalaureate engineering education should emphasize the inherent connectivity and the complementary nature of these two sets of elements. Tomorrow's engineers will need both abstract and experiential learning, the ability to understand certainty and to handle ambiguity, to formulate and solve problems, to work independently and in teams, and to meld engineering science and engineering practice. Put simply, our aim now should be to achieve some balance between the corresponding elements in each row. This effort can lead us in a scholarly way to realizing Ortega's "construction of the whole." Certainly, today's easier access to information and improved connectivity will enable engineers (indeed everyone) to make more productive connections to learn and create. This combination of access and connectivity may well prove to be the key enabler for Ortega's vision. Engineering education should therefore shift emphasis from course content (and the consequent filtering of students) to a more comprehensive view, a view that focuses on the development of human resources and the broader educational experience in which individual courses and experiences are connected and integrated. This intent is made more facile in an era of knowledge and distributed intelligence. While I have focused my remarks primarily on undergraduate education to this point, what can we say about graduate engineering education, and beyond, in the context of an engineer's responsibility to "construct the whole?" Many U.S. graduate programs, while rigorous and in-depth, are too narrowly focused to appeal to the professionally oriented engineer who is concerned with career-enabling subjects, such as manufacturing, construction, systems integration, environmental technologies, quality control, safety, and management of technological innovation. Most of this content can be addressed in a Master's program, but too often the program is configured as a "stepping stone" to the reductionist-oriented Ph.D. Today, there is growing consensus that professional-level engineers need an integrative Master's degree and that our universities need to offer more practice-oriented Master's degree programs -- with stronger connections to industry and to the social, economic, and management sciences. A variety of investments have been established over the past decade toward this end. Even the doctoral degree is being challenged as too analytic and too sub-specialty oriented. There is now a great call across all of science and engineering to reorient the Ph.D. curriculum to enable graduates to enjoy a broader spectrum of career opportunities, while sustaining the rich educational enhancement derived from the process of doing research. How we might enable the next generation engineer is depicted in Figure 2. The complimentary curricular components of a holistic undergraduate curriculum lead to a practice-oriented master's-level curriculum and/or an integrative, discovery-focused doctoral curriculum -- all supported by infrastructures for cognitive systems and career-long learning. Figure 2 Engineering Education --------------------------------------------------------------------- Practice-Oriented Master's Level Holistic Curriculum Integrative Undergraduate | Discovery-Focused Curriculum \ | / Doctoral \ | / Curriculum \ V / \/ \/ Enable Next Generation Engineer /\ /\ / \ / \ Cognitive Career-Long Systems Learning Infrastructure Infrastructure --------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's look more closely at this thing called "cognitive systems." It is no overstatement to say that the term "potential" has never been as meaningful as it is today. Potential conveys possibility, opportunity, and capability -- all of which exist in abundance as we enter an era of knowledge and distributed intelligence. Browsers -- be they Mosaic, Netscape, Internet Explorer, or others -- have transformed the Internet from an obscure research tool to something a five-year-old can "surf." Search engines such as Alta Vista and Yahoo help people control the flood of information unleashed by the Web. Moreover, what we are seeing today is only the beginning. Supercomputers are now breaking the teraflop barrier. Today's experimental networks -- such as the NSF-supported very high speed Backbone Network Service (vBNS) -- transmit data in excess of 600 megabits per second (Mbps), a twelve-fold increase over current Internet operating speeds. If history is any guide, it won't take long for these capabilities to reach the typical user. When combined with technologies such as palmtops, handhelds, intelligent agents, and omnipresent sensors, the potential before us takes on an entirely new dimension. Information and knowledge would be available in forms that make it easier for everyone to use effectively -- voice, video, text, holograms, to name but a few of a universe of possibilities. Will we develop new ways to express and unleash our creative talents -- talents that are now limited by our ability to interface via a QWERTY keyboard and mouse? What tools will enable us to control and master this ultra-rapid flow of information? Will having the proverbial Library of Congress in your pocket be a blessing or a burden? In conclusion, the answers to these questions begin with us. Our efforts and our leadership can transform this immense, unprecedented, and somewhat intimidating potential into true progress, economic opportunity, social gain, and rising living standards for human civilization. The first step toward success in this endeavor rests with our system of education and training for engineers. Engineering education has become much more than a four or five year bachelor's degree or seven year Ph.D. It now requires developing our ability to strengthen and continually refresh our talents for innovation and creativity. Professional societies will need to assume greater responsibility for enabling their members to thrive through change. Universities will be presented with new mechanisms for interacting with students, as well as for linking the creation of knowledge with its dissemination and application. The spread of digital libraries; the onset of virtual collaboratives; the capacity to mine data with alacrity; the assurance of high-confidence systems for privacy, security, and reliability; and the creation of knowledge-on-demand pedagogies -- all these, and their integration, have ushered in a promising new era of discovery, innovation, and progress. This presents us with the opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to sustain and expand the connections to learning and discovery. These connections will determine our destiny in the next millennium. Our efforts and our leadership hold the key to success. Let's make these new connections to learn and create and lead engineering education to its next dimension! Paraphrasing the words of Peter Drucker, as quoted in the March 10th (1997) issue of Forbes magazine, "just look out the window and see what's visible -- but not yet seen." BEST PRACTICES WORKSHOPS o Building Effective Industry/Academe Partnerships for Engineering Education Innovation o Best Practices in Multimedia Courseware o Delivering Engineering Education via Distance Learning o Building Effective Dissemination Processes o Institutionalizing Engineering Education Innovations _______________________________________________________________________________ BUILDING EFFECTIVE INDUSTRY/ACADEME PARTNERSHIPS FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION INNOVATION Chair: Fred Beaufait Director Greenfield Coalition Focus: Hope and Wayne State University Facilitators: William Shelnutt Associate Professor University of North Carolina, Charlotte Jack Hebrank Adjunct Associate Professor North Carolina State University BEST PRACTICES AND ISSUES Fred Beaufait, chairman of the workshop, asked all participants to briefly identify themselves, describe the industry interactions in which they were involved, and outline best practices or other issues in building partnerships between industry and academic institutions. The group broke into six subgroups. Each subgroup was asked to: 1. Brainstorm best practices or issues 2. Identify one or more for presentation to the group 3. Report on their best practices or issues. The reports of the subgroups follow. Results of both the morning and afternoon sessions (which followed the same format) are reported. 1. Cooperative Education Programs (Including Internships) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pros of Co-ops Cons ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Students get better jobs, are more Scheduling courses around co-op or employable. internship experiences is difficult. Industry is enthusiastic. Quality control (to ensure educational value) is challenging. Students acquire a better It is not always easy to involve understanding of the workplace, companies in supervising students. return to their studies more motivated. There are opportunities for faculty Programs add an extra year to the development through contact with students--studies. industry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internships and cooperative education, the subgroup said, are for all practical purposes the same thing. There are many variations, but it is useful to consider them together. Participants discussed the issues raised by this presentation. Taylan Altan, director of the Net Shape Manufacturing Center (an Engineering Research Center [ERC] with funding from the industry and the state) at The Ohio State University, observed that co-op experience is universal at German engineering schools. "On-line co-op" is also possible (as, for example, at his campus-based institution), on the model of the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany. Fred Beaufait noted that many engineering students (about 80% at Wayne State) have part-time jobs. Co-op education is a good alternative to working at unrelated low-paying jobs for many students. One participant pointed out that the faculty-industry contacts developed in arranging and supervising co-op education are valuable in themselves. They help build mutual respect and understanding, they give faculty a window on the needs and priorities of industry, and they give industrial representatives an appreciation of students' educational needs (which go beyond the immediate workforce needs of industry). They can even result in additional research funding. 2. Internships Internships are immensely valuable for students, but they challenge the values and traditions of all participants: 1. The differing time horizons of companies and academic institutions can cause conflicts; product cycles are growing shorter in the private sector, but in the academic sector the time to graduation has remained the same or even increased in recent years. 2. Some faculty members may discourage internships as an unwarranted interruption of students' studies. Students, on the other hand, can find them stimulating and inspiring, as well as advantageous in finding a job after graduation. 3. Industry must be involved in planning the internships, but some firms may tend to use interns simply as cheap labor. Internships should be integrated into the rest of the curriculum, while exposing students (and faculty) to the competencies needed by working engineers. Discussion focused on the need for engineering schools to administer these arrangements carefully. They require clear schedules, structures, and objectives. 3. Small Company Involvement Involving smaller firms as industrial partners raises special problems. One must understand individual companies' needs. Engineering schools should do whatever is possible to lower any hurdles; for example, a company may begin by funding a research project and may then go on to become involved in curriculum development. Because many firms rely on universities as research labs, such a progressive sequence of involvement may seem natural. Engineering schools must market their research services to these companies in addition to larger ones. The advantages of involving small companies as partners include the following: o For students, they offer more varied educational experiences. o For companies, they offer a more satisfying interaction with the university. o For the university, they offer access to technology (such as up-to-date instruments and components). In ensuing discussion, it was observed that marketing to small companies is more labor-intensive than marketing to larger ones, so universities need to work harder. 4. Structuring Partnerships with Industry Strong, productive partnerships with industry, this subgroup reported, require a degree of structure that academics may find uncomfortable. Successful partnerships require: o clear objectives and responsibilities (spelled out explicitly in a strategic plan and a business plan); o well-understood mechanisms of collaboration; and o the ability to manage change (in company goals, in personnel, and in financial conditions). While many partnerships with industry have been mounted over the years, sustaining them is a serious problem. Most faculty have no industrial work experience. Junior faculty have a well-known lack of incentives for working with industry as partners (because tenure decisions -- made generally by the most conservative members of the faculty -- do not reward such work). In the following discussion, it was suggested that NSF and other grant-making agencies should explicitly reward young engineering faculty for building partnerships with industry, to counteract the problem of tenure incentives. One current NSF program with this objective is GOALI (Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry). More incentives along this line are needed. For example, NSF should consider scoring proposals partly for the extent and quality of industrial interaction. One way to keep industry involved over time would be to include explicit "deliverables" among the objectives. Doing so, however, runs counter to the academic culture, which traditionally considers students to be the only deliverables. 5. "On-Line" (On Campus) Co-op Education Students can have many of the benefits of co-op education without leaving campus, said this subgroup, by working on industry-funded research projects. Academic-industrial research and technology centers, such as ERCs, provide good platforms for these activities. StudentsÀ À experiences give them insight into the problems of industry. Industry gains cheap labor and access to promising young engineers. But faculty members receive no benefits under the current reward system. In fact, they are likely to see these programs as drains on their precious time, which could be devoted to publishing and raising research funding. 6. Changing the University Culture to Accept and Support Partnerships with Industry The tenure system and other professional rewards are one source of the difficulty of involving faculty with industry in joint educational activities. Both junior and senior faculty are reluctant to involve themselves, because they are so busy. In addition, many faculty are leery of restrictions on academic freedoms (such as free publication of results). Large industry(tm)university collaborative research centers such as ERCs can help reduce the workload imposed on faculty, because they handle many of the necessary administrative tasks. Industry must perceive its participation in joint projects as advantageous. Efforts must be made to establish a situation in which the students, the companies, and the institution all win. The corporate partners' short-term workforce needs must be met, but not at the expense of the versatility that students will need in their careers. A similar balance must be struck between companies' desire for protection of proprietary information and the academic interest in free communication. Engineering schools and their parent institutions need to spell out clearly, at the outset of joint activities, what limitations on publication are permissible. Constant attention to the balance of power is inherent in these negotiations. Students' freedom to make mistakes must be protected in these arrangements. Alternative faculty rewards, it was suggested, are needed to encourage faculty to work with undergraduates in this way. New measures of professional achievement, for example, might include involvement with industry and undergraduates. 7. Involving Industry at All Levels in Curriculum Development Involving industry in curriculum development is highly desirable but challenging. The work is time-consuming. Funds are needed to cover the time of faculty and industry representatives. From the faculty's standpoint, industry may be seen as intruding in the traditional way of doing things. Discussion centered on the difficulty of establishing mutually satisfying relationships in curriculum development. Industry tends to see engineering schools as a system of "farm teams," which are supported by academic and government resources and therefore do not require additional industrial funding. The parallel case of professional football and basketball teams (which draw their recruits without compensation from university-supported teams) was mentioned. The strength of this parallel is questionable, though, some said, because college sports are supported largely by broadcast revenues. Small companies, it was suggested, should be a special focus of academic curriculum development efforts. They are the main sources of innovation and growth in the economy, and serving their research and education needs is a potential growth area for engineering schools. Curriculum development partnerships need not involve transfers of funds, a participant suggested. Small companies in particular may have other resources (facilities, equipment, technology, and cutting-edge engineering problems) that they can contribute to engineering curricula. Engineering curricula must become more responsive to industry, one participant said. Most engineering students will go on to work in industry, and every effort should be made to reflect industry's problems in curricula and in the academic culture. Faculty incentives should be radically revised to orient them toward industry, rather than simply toward the demands of research funding agencies such as NSF. The funding agencies themselves should emphasize industrial partnership more than they do, with extra credit for educational collaboration with industry. 8. Advisory Boards at the College Level Industrial advisory boards at the college level should be structured to reflect the two main functions of advisory boards. First, they should have high-level corporate representatives (CEOs or senior vice presidents) to provide access and informal links with corporate management. A second-tier group should include lower-level corporate staff, from vice presidents for engineering or research to working engineers; this second group can be relied on for actual work, as in developing curricula and internship programs. These boards can be organized in subcommittees, with substantive responsibilities and concrete objectives. Industrial partners are vital to engineering schools in shaping curricula around the competencies students need in the workplace. One the other hand, joint work on curriculum development or internship programs, one participant said, can result in issues regarding the proper balance between industrial and academic interests. Such work requires oversight to avoid tilting too far in either direction. 9. Various Issues One group opted to present two best practices and one "bad practice": o Best Practice 1: Build on existing relationships, working iteratively to develop curricula and other initiatives. A partnership can grow closer and more synergistic with time. o Best Practice 2: Develop partnerships systematically, with joint strategic planning, benchmarking, and marketing. o Bad Practice: Build a relationship that depends on a single individual in industry. (The subgroup agreed that this practice could be stated positively as "Work with multiple industrial representatives, avoiding reliance on a single person." In discussion, it was observed that inviting industry to help develop academic programs can lead to stronger relationships, including additional research funds. SUMMARY The chairman, facilitators, and workshop participants worked together to choose the most important best practices and issues from those identified throughout the day. They developed a list of issues and best practices and assigned priorities by voting for those they considered most vital. Based on this group analysis, Fred Beaufait selected the six highest-priority items and added two more issues gleaned from the day's discussions. He reported these in his summary to the conference plenary session later in the day: o Modify the university culture in ways that will allow academe to better support industrial partnerships and better recognize the importance of industry's role in education and research o Build on existing long-term relationships to form new areas of interaction in education o Structure industry/academic partnerships to include objectives and deliverables, not just financial support o Internships/co-op should be driven by strong collaboration with industry, should be carefully structured, and should involve faculty in planning and monitoring o Establish strong college-level advisory boards, allowing industrial input on design, professional practices, etc., to filter down to the departments and into courses o Participate in strategic planning, benchmarking, and marketing with industrial partners o Curriculum development with industrial collaboration (industry needs to know that the faculty are listening) o Involve alumni, university, and industry in win/win interactions for good projects. _______________________________________________________________________________ BEST PRACTICES IN MULTIMEDIA COURSEWARE Chair: Beverly Woolf Professor Department of Computer Science University of Massachusetts, Amherst Facilitators: Pamela Kurstedt Assistant Dean of Engineering Virginia Polytechnic and State University Matt Ohland Assistant Director SUCCEED Coalition University of Florida Sam Awonyi Assistant Dean of Engineering Florida State University/Florida A&M University Workshop chair Beverly Woolf explained the objective of the session: to identify potential best practices in developing and implementing new multimedia courseware. It was agreed that, given the participation in the large workshop of many novices as well as experts, the group's identification of best practices as a whole should be considered provisional, if in some instances well-grounded. Seven topic areas were amplified and then discussed; for each, the suggestions for best practices in that area are summarized below. No consensus was sought or reached by the workshop participants on which of the identified best practices appear most valuable. 1. Best Practices in Multimedia Development. How should the curriculum be assessed and knowledge gathered? How many kinds of expertise are needed on a development team (e.g., subject matter experts, instructional technologists, multimedia specialists)? The material selected for multimedia development should lend itself well to that format. Multimedia's special characteristics should be exploited, rather than simply presenting multimedia material in a way that models textbooks. Students should interact with the program, which should be student-driven and aimed at accommodating different students' capabilities as appropriate and feasible. Research has shown that interactivity -- in the form of "intelligent tutors'" -- can reduce time of instruction and errors in learning. Tasks particularly suited to multimedia presentation include role-playing, concept acquisition, and visualization-based skills. A large range of products could be called "multimedia"; but, regardless of its form, multimedia material should be interactive and student-centered. To develop multimedia products successfully, a variety of expertise is required -- although, of course, such a range may be found in one person. These skills include instructional design, programming, writing, graphic art, subject matter, funding development, and perhaps project management as well. Without sufficient grounding in such expertise, multimedia products are very likely to be marginal. Expert advice can sometimes be had through the university's center for educational technology or outsourcing. Multimedia tools should be tested over the course of their development. This will permit units to be restructured and other needed changes to be made in a timely way. Several major obstacles stand in the way of multimedia courseware development. Beyond the reluctance of universities to transform their educational settings to accommodate such materials, educators have few incentives to develop multimedia products. University support, in the form of technical and copyright expertise and motivation of faculty through tenure and other rewards, would be very useful in furthering the development of such courseware. Mechanisms are also needed to provide reimbursement for creative efforts accessed through the World Wide Web and to recover development costs. In particular, faculty want to limit the distribution of their personal instruction materials. 2. Best Practices in Selecting Multimedia Tools. What are the pros and cons of available software? How can we move beyond current forms of presentation? Developers need to identify the kind of media elements they want to use, to select the optimal programming software. Those interested in developing multimedia courseware should begin by seeking expert advice and sampling existing programs -- including those on the university campus -- and by networking with interest groups. They should attend conferences and arrange for demonstrations to acquire further competence. Table 1 identifies various multimedia elements and some of the software tools that are most useful for producing and presenting them. Table 1: Multimedia Elements and the Software Packages Best at Producing Them ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Element Tool ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simulation (mathematical) Many, including Extend, Power Symbol, C++ 3-D graphics 3-D Studio, Director, Visual Basic,Tri- Spe Animation Director, Visual Basic Audio Sound Edit Video Premier Hypertext Authorware, Word 97 Real-time interaction (collaboration) Visual Basic, C++ Object-oriented interactivity mTropolis Internet Java ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Each programming language also has its drawbacks (e.g., Authorware and mTropolis require significant programming skills). Web browsers can also be used as a shell. Their advantages include platform-independence, lack of cost, and pervasiveness; their drawbacks are their primitiveness and slowness. Potential developers should further explore such software specifics, both pros and cons, by consulting the experts. Regardless of the software chosen for development, it should produce multimedia tools that are easy to use, provide immediate feedback, and track users (e.g., via ties to central computers). The programs should capture students' work. Program tasks should also be designed to require or at least encourage communication and collaboration -- for example, via teaming, the sharing of terminals, and e-mail. Multimedia tools can serve a variety of clientele, providing both regular courses and distance learning. They can be used as entire courses or supporting material. In any application, multimedia courseware changes the structure of education and the role of the educator. From the educator's perspective, a variety of tasks can be offloaded: rote learning, frequently asked questions, the provision of much background material, grading, recordkeeping, and lecture/slide and lecture/audio instruction. The use of multimedia software opens up the classroom to creative instruction and applications, integration of knowledge, and expanded student-teacher and even wider communication (as via the Internet). Outside the classroom, by means of e-mail, the student can get a fast response from the instructor on any question of interest. The instructor becomes coach and motivator, rather than authority, in a setting that can address real-world problems. Thus, while multimedia tools can fundamentally restructure the educational process, they cannot replace the functions of good teachers. Clearly, the role of the learner in this educational process has changed as well. Today, students must acquire a new category of skills. From the flood of available information, they must know how to extract data, recognize problems, seek solutions through good search strategies, and synthesize information meaningfully. They must know how to work in integrated teams. Above all, they must learn how to learn, in order to continue acquiring the new skills demanded in a fast-evolving culture. 3. Best Practices in Multimedia Implementation. How should interfaces, controls, and student interaction be implemented? How should Web-based systems be implemented? How should individual components be implemented? In implementing multimedia products, educators should test, emulate, and adapt from other quality products. As in developing multimedia courseware, they should exploit all available resources efficiently. Specific issues for multimedia implementation include ease of use and flexibility of individual pacing, and the use of tiered material structure, to reach students of all levels and backgrounds. Again, active student participation in addressing real-world problems should be the overarching goal. Actual problems may be presented, for example, by means of video loops. The use of a game approach (e.g, with sound effects) can increase the entertainment value of programs and enhance learning. 4. Best Practices in Assessment and Evaluation. How do we know if systems are effective? Are students really learning better and more with multimedia? How is learning enhanced by multimedia? What are documented success stories? The current paradigm of the academy is not a multimedia approach. Well-established best practices or benchmarks to assess multimedia courseware are therefore lacking. How is the success of such courseware to be judged -- by controlled experiment, the market, or still other means? Until a paradigm shift occurs, the notion of assessment might be simplified in this context. Thus, if a multimedia program has a mechanism for the user to self-test, and if the program supplements course material and complements the text, it might at present be judged an "effective package." A few well-grounded guidelines can be followed in the meantime: establish a learning baseline (pretest), present small (self-contained) learning modules, require activity on the part of the student, provide regular feedback, and get students' perspectives on the program. New programs need to be designed to collect data on learner errors and other information of use for program evaluation. Developers can also begin to collaborate with professional evaluators toward establishing good assessment mechanisms for the new multimedia courseware. Finally, in evaluating multimedia courseware, an important point should be kept in mind: the multimedia approach itself inherently enhances specific learning skills (e.g., in visualization and communication), thereby affecting the very goals of the learning process. 5. Best Practices in Standardization, Organization, and Dissemination. What standardized formats are best for collaborative development and dissemination? How can these systems be catalogued and peer reviewed? What efforts are needed to keep systems working, current, and revised? Because multimedia approaches are so new, there is still no clear choice of standards for their form. Potential benefits of standardization include ease of dissemination, collaboration, customization, and adoption, while potential drawbacks include making the wrong choices and limiting development horizons unnecessarily. Several practices might encourage standardization of a desirable sort: a peer-reviewed archival database, on the model of a research publication; NSF cross-coalition work; and attempts at revising engineering curricula such as those seen recently in the coalitions and elsewhere. Dissemination in general facilitates standardization, as in the form of the National Engineering Education Delivery System (NEEDS) being developed by the Synthesis Coalition or by providing free, limited versions of material by means of the Web. Such dissemination can also be aided by peer-reviewed system testing at beta sites. 6. Best Practices in Enabling Adoption of Multimedia. What can be done to enable adoption of more effective new technologies? What are the barriers? The adoption of multimedia programs faces several obstacles: lack of related funding; the general reluctance to move away from textbooks, including students' desire for text (though, again, multimedia programs can be used as a supplement to, rather than as a replacement for, a traditional course). Also needed to encourage multimedia courseware adoption are the more widespread availability and use of laptops, PCs and printers, and Internet and e-mail links. Program developers themselves need to be sold on the idea of multimedia courseware; outreach must be made to content experts, engineering educators, and universities. A faculty champion and/or other university area specialist can strongly encourage use of multimedia. Universities can be given a financial stake in developing such programs -- although faculty roles might need to evolve in this arrangement, since textbooks traditionally belong to the author. Universities might also help potential authors clarify copyright issues. Again, multimedia developments could be established as one basis for faculty advancement. Finally, students and educators both could be provided opportunities to become familiar with the new technology through workshops and presentations, encouraged by new seed money. Other practices to facilitate multimedia adoption include improving the programs' platform flexibility, such as through a basis in Java or standard low-level language, increasing the capability to be adapted for individualized use (e.g., via modules), and making basic software upgrades. Adoption of multimedia courseware offers educators several strong advantages. It can make life easier by: reducing administrative work, providing normal course materials, and offering such special features as Web-based interaction with students to provide them with expert feedback quickly. 7. Best Practices in Licensing Multimedia Material. How can you work with the university to license your multimedia? How can you work with publishers and venture capitalists? How can you negotiate fair terms to commercialize the software? Intellectual property rights in the area of multimedia developments are currently both complex and evolving. Good practices appear to include licensing as narrowly as possible (e.g., over markets or time periods); establishing small companies (C or S corporations) for liability protection; encouraging publishers to compete for material; and involving the university's research or patent office. Copyright law itself is short, easy to read, and helpful to consult. Because multi-institutional multimedia programs have already been developed, a publication (or CD-ROM) covering this area, with input from all types of parties involved, would also be useful. Copyright now belongs to the employer only in the case of "work for hire"; thus, in this area, potential developers should do their homework before embarking on new multimedia projects. Similarly, great care must be taken with publishers regarding any rights the author wishes to retain. SUMMARY In her summary of the workshop to the conference attendees in plenary session, Dr. Woolf took an integrative, cross-cutting approach to formulating "some radical suggestions" for changes needed in the university and college structure in order to facilitate the introduction of multimedia courseware. 1. To improve the implementation of multimedia, the role of faculty will need to be redefined to allow more creativity in teaching; one-on-one tutoring, coaching, and mentoring; and to permit faculty to off-load rote learning aspects of education. The university itself will need to be restructured to allow faculty to be rewarded for development and implementation of multimedia, to provide more labs, and possibly to permit the partial elimination of books and lectures. 2. To facilitate the dissemination of multimedia, a paradigm shift in education will be necessary. Also needed will be peer review and archiving of courseware. 3. Evaluation of multimedia courseware must take into account the multiple teaching methods available and the fact that new student skills in browsing/searching, communication, and collaboration are available under the multimedia approach. 4. With regard to standardization of multimedia courseware, it is important to standardize objects, not packages. Digital resources must be made more widely available, and development should not be constrained. 5. In terms of copyright and licensing, it is necessary to realize that the university might not release a multimedia product for public use. Also, liability is an open question. _______________________________________________________________________________ DELIVERING ENGINEERING EDUCATION VIA DISTANCE LEARNING Chair: Thomas K. Miller III, Ph.D. Professor and Assistant Dean for Educational Technology College of Engineering North Carolina State University Facilitators: Harold A. Kurstedt, Ph.D. Hal G. Prillaman Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering Virginia Polytechnic University Joel S. Greenstein, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering Clemson University WORKSHOP PLAN The workshop chair, Prof. Thomas Miller, summarized the plan for the workshop. The desired outcome of the workshop would consist of four "products": o A list of issues, concerns, and needs in delivering engineering education at a distance, identified by the workshop participants o A list of potential "best practices" for delivering engineering education at a distance, also to be identified by the workshop participants o A mapping from the best practices to those issues, concerns, and needs they addressed o On the basis of the issues, needs, and concerns not addressed, a listing of areas where further research, demonstration, and development are needed. A Framework for Distance Education Prof. Miller prefers to view the subject of the workshop as distance education rather than distance learning because he sees many facets of the educational process that can involve a "distance" component, including: o distance learning o distance teaching o distance "office hours" for one-on-one interactions between instructor and students o distance advising o distance laboratories o distance administration o distance mentoring o distance teaming. When these different aspects are taken into account, particularly in how they interact with one another, the bottom line is that education is a process. The complexity of the process must be kept in mind. To provide a framework for categorizing and discussing different forms of distance education, Prof. Miller uses a 2x2 matrix of the possibilities for "distance" as temporal distance, spatial distance, or both (Figure 1). Traditional teaching falls in the lower left cell of this matrix. Each of the remaining cells represents a form of distance education with its own demands and opportunities. The two upper cells represent the situations we typically consider as distance teaching/learning contexts. || | ^ || | | || | | || Same time | Different Time | || Different Place | Different Place Space || (synchronous) | (asynchronous) ----------------------------------------------- || | || | || Same time | Different Time || Same place | Same place || (traditional | || education) | ----------------------------------------------- Time ----> Figure 1. Space-time options for distance education. Procedural Approach There were two workshop sessions; the afternoon session built on the groundwork accomplished in the morning session. Eight participants in the first session had come prepared with a "practice" in distance education that they were interested in sharing with the group; two more were added by the afternoon participants. Several of these participants noted, however, that they did not consider their practices to be "best practices" in the sense of being the best way to accomplish a given end. The plan for this workshop was to begin by focusing on the question: What are the issues, needs, and concerns in engineering education "at a distance"? Participants would then break into small groups to discuss the best practices already submitted, which would then be presented to the entire group in a "round-robin" sharing of ideas. The participants in the afternoon session would review the two lists from the morning session, add items that had not been included, and then vote on and rank the set of issues in order of importance. RESULTS List of Issues, Needs, and Concerns The silent generation of "issues, needs, and concerns," followed by the round-robin presentation, produced 68 items. A period of clarifying discussion and combining of similar ideas reduced the number of items. The participants in the afternoon session added a further 11 items during their round-robin session and produced some additional combining of closely related ideas. Table 1 (following this summary) is the final listing of 71 "issues, needs, and concerns," categorized under five headings worked out by participants. The voting scores for the items (right-hand columns) are explained below under "Voting and Ranking." Voting and Ranking of Issues As the next step, participants were each given cards on which to write the nine issues to which they gave the highest preference. They were then asked to rank those issues in order of preference from 9 (highest preference) to 1 (lowest preference). The preference points for each item were totaled. The facilitators then reported the results for each item, giving both the total of preference points and the number of participants who had voted for an item. These results are shown in the last two columns in Table 1. Surfacing of High-Preference Items Participants were next asked to consider where a line could be drawn distinguishing the issues with highest preference from those that received some preference votes but were not as generally preferred. The participants agreed to draw the line for high-preference items at 15 or more preference points, with 3 or more participants voting for that item. Following some additional linking of related items, the resulting 11 high-preference items are listed in Table 2 (at end). Linkages Between High-Preference Items and Current Practices The participants were then asked to consider collectively which of the ten current practices identified earlier addressed each of the high-preference items. (See following for description of these practices.) The results of this linkage are displayed in the matrix in Table 2, suggesting the likely applicability or relevance of individual practices to the specified issues. CURRENT PRACTICES After the step of combining and clarifying their list of issues, needs, and concerns, the workshop participants broke into groups for brief discussion of the ten current practices, which were then presented to the entire group. The ten practices are described here (A-J below). The subsection letters correspond to those used in Table 2, which shows how the participants matched the current practices to their high-preference issues. A. Control of World Wide Web Content Presented by Prof. John R. Williams, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (john@iesel.mit.edu) MIT has begun putting course materials on World Wide Web sites for access by students on and off campus. Prof. Williams addressed questions relating to how to provide organized support for creating and maintaining Website course materials. It is particularly important to avoid the cost of redoing a Web-based course each time the course is given, he said. At present, Prof. Williams is aware of two approaches to developing Web-based courses: 1) pay an expert group (an on-campus unit or outside contractor) to put the course up on whatever medium is most appropriate; or 2) create a "wrapper," or template, for Web courses. This template includes components to handle registration and other administrative matters, homework submission, and other cross(tm)cutting elements of a course. The specific content of a course is then added to the template. The first approach becomes very expensive to implement for multiple courses and subject areas. The second approach has the potential to be more cost-effective and to allow teachers to focus on the content of the course. However, the quality of the template becomes crucial; it has to spare as much redundancy as possible without shoe-horning diverse courses into a constraining format. To date at MIT, the usual practice for maintaining sites, once they are developed, has been to have a graduate student maintain and update the materials. It is an open question whether this is the best way to protect the investment made in creating Web courses. Prof. Williams concluded by saying that he believes "serious money" is needed to find and demonstrate good answers to the issues raised by Web-based courses. A third issue that Prof. Williams addressed was Website security and security of student submissions (homework, problem sets, etc.). He noted that MIT has had success in using Lotus Notes to provide appropriate levels of security. B. Two Issues in Incorporating Distance Learning in an Engineering Program Presented by Prof. Gregory R. Miller, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Washington(gmiller@u.washington.edu) Prof. Miller presented his views on two issues relating to implementing distance learning in an engineering program. The first issue is whether to favor a content-driven, "bottom-up" (i.e., course-by-course) approach to building distance learning into the program or a "top-down" approach, in which a high-level decision to "go on the Web" (or whatever) is implemented in a controlled way. The second issue concerns the accepted dichotomy between distance learning and classroom learning. On the first issue, Prof. Miller favors the bottom-up approach. There is a lot of experimentation and creativity going into the diversity of course-level implementation efforts. A top-down approach might put too tight a noose around this diversity and stifle the innovation. Huge investments "from the top" in specified directions do not make sense at this time, he said, because the field and the state of practice are changing too rapidly. Prof. Miller favors an approach of looking for what is being done that is good and can be used more widely. On the second issue, Prof. Miller has found that combining traditional "classroom learning" with distance learning approaches works well. The two kinds of approaches should not be viewed as mutually exclusive alternatives. He suggests interspersing some form of face-to-face meeting with the distance-learning sessions. C. Using an On-Campus Data Acquisition System as Data Resource Presented by Prof. Dale W. Kirmse, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Florida (kirmse@che.ufl.edu) Prof. Kirmse described the use of data acquired from the operational monitoring (conventional SCADA systems) of campus utility systems as a real-world data stream for use in laboratory projects. Real-time operating data from the university's energy management system, cogeneration unit, boilers, water chillers, and wastewater treatment unit are captured on data servers in the support facility for the computer-aided process improvement laboratory. Students use interactive workstations to retrieve data from the databases and then apply software tools for analysis, developing process models, simulation, and critical evaluation of the utility processes. The long-term plan for the project was described by Prof. Kirmse in "The Computer/Aided Process Improvement Laboratory," Succeed, Spring 1994, pp. 12-14. Additional information is available on a Website: http://gatorpowr.che.ufl.edu. D. Distance Learning Administration Unit Presented by Prof. Paul J. Componation, University of Alabama, Huntsville (pjc@ebs330.ebs.uah.edu) Prof. Componation described an administrative unit set up by the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Alabama. This unit serves as a centralized source of administrative support and resources for distance education projects. The initial pot of money with which the unit was started has become self-sustaining, as courses and materials developed with the support of the unit have contributed a revenue stream back to it. This unit, originally set up for one department, has begun to provide similar infrastructure support services for distance education projects in other departments. However, Prof. Componation believes that at some point it will make sense for separate units to spin off, as the distance-education project base grows, rather than moving toward one campus-wide, centralized administrative support unit. He characterized the student population (on and off campus) served by the university's distance education program as having an average age of 37 and a great deal of work experience, which makes these students very demanding of the realism and applicability of courses. The administrative unit provides an institutional base of practices and resources for helping faculty members to get distance education courses in shape to satisfy this demanding clientele. E. TV and Video-Conferencing Technology Options Presented by Prof. Ronald J. Roedel, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Arizona State University (r.roedel@asu.edu) Prof. Roedel explained that his interest was in discussing and comparing the experience at Arizona State with TV and video conferencing with others who had worked with this medium, rather than offering a specific best practice. As he summarized what had come out of the small-group discussion, the "state of practice" in this area appears to include three basic approaches. o One approach is exemplified by the picture-tel link used by Worcester Polytechnic Institute to communicate to an offsite education center. This approach is expensive but allows real-time interaction with the students at the distant site during the session. o The second approach is to use closed-circuit TV, as is being done at Arizona State, the University of South Carolina, and the National Technological University. This approach has video and audio going out in real time (synchronous mode, to use Prof. Thomas Miller's framework), but is noninteractive, at least in real time. o The third current approach is to send videotapes to a distant site where students come together to watch and participate among themselves. Interactions with the instructor and among the onsite and offsite students are possible by telephone and electronic mail, although such interactions are asynchronous. Prof. Roedel cited the University of Massachusetts and the National Technological University as examples where this approach has been used. Prof. Roedel added that there were trade-offs in cost versus degree of real-time interaction and participation among these approaches. They range from highly interactive to little or no interaction, and Prof. Roedel personally places a lot of value on the interaction. Another option that may emerge is the use of pay-per-view technology through local cable companies. F. Experience with Distance Teaching a Course in Rapid Prototyping Presented by Prof. Ortwin Ohtmer, California State University at Long Beach (orohtmer@engr.csulb.edu/me/) Prof. Ohtmer described his experience with distance teaching of a course in rapid product development. (CSULB is a member of the Southern California Coalition for Education in Manufacturing Engineering, or SCCEME, which had an exhibit at the conference.) An important goal of the course Prof. Ohtmer taught was to demonstrate to students the changing world of manufacturing. The course was designed to provide synchronous interaction with students at the distant sites through use of closed-circuit television cameras with microphones at each site. When the course was first presented, variations in the equipment at different sites made a "disaster" of the attempts at interaction with the distant sites. Prof. Ohtmer found that the lack of interaction with the distant students deprived him of the feedback he needed as teacher, to know whether students were understanding or needed more help with a point. When the course was taught again using essentially the same method but with the same equipment at all sites, Prof. Ohtmer said it was highly successful. He added that the availability of "downloadable blackboards," so that students could receive an immediate copy of the teacher's notes without copying them during the class, allowed students to be more active in the session. The moral of the story is that the technology base required to support the more challenging opportunities in distance education becomes a critical element in educational success. The technical support personnel to ensure that the equipment is up and running, and even graduate assistants to help in monitoring the responses of students at the distant sites, are critical to successful interactive distance learning. In summary, reliable equipment and the expert personnel to operate it are essential factors, but they add to the costs that must be covered. An important opportunity demonstrated by the course, according to Prof. Ohtmer, is that of sharing a cutting-edge laboratory at a number of sites. This could enable individual schools in a coalition to specialize, having cutting-edge facilities in complementary areas rather duplicating facilities. In Prof. Ohtmer's course, for instance, all the students had access to state-of-the-art modeling technology at one site. G. Facilitating Interaction with Hypernews Presented by Ms. Natalie M. Acuna, Program Manager, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (nacuna@wpi.edu) Ms. Acuna described the use of Hypernews as an asynchronous interactive forum to complement distance-teaching. It can be used for "many-many" discussions (i.e. discussions among multiple students, with or without the instructor) and "one-many" communications. For example, students in her courses were required to prepare a "journal" of at least one page a week and post it on the internet in Hypernews. The instructor could respond privately(one-to-one) via email to the student with comments, as well as participating in the discussions. The Website can be visited at: ÃÃhttp://grolsch.wpi.edu/hypernews/get/isg501.html Ms. Acuna noted that this method for distance interaction does entail some special responsibilities on the part of the instructor. Means of protecting students' work must be provided. She also found that students needed to have individual feedback on their submissions when they were being asked to contribute a lot. H. Televised Instruction and Intel Proshare Presented by Prof. Minoru Taya, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington (tayam@u.washington.edu) The University of Washington has been running a program called Televised Instruction in Engineering (TIE) since the mid-1980s. The target audience is primarily engineers working for local companies, including Boeing. The TIE courses, which are mostly graduate-level courses in the College of Engineering, traditionally have relied on live or taped video viewing of class lectures. The distant students have used telephone or electronic mail (internet) to ask technical questions. Homework is sent in by express mail with at least a one-day time lag. To improve the interactions between instructors and students, particularly those students outside the Greater Seattle area for whom campus visits are difficult, Prof. Taya is trying to complement the existing TIE program with two-way communication via PCs equipped with Intel Proshare. Each PC has an attached video camera. The screen is divided to provide a live picture of the user at the other end and a "blackboard" area for displaying equations, figures, and keyboard-entered writing. PCs with Proshare are being installed in faculty offices, in a teaching assistants' office, and at various company sites accessible to the distant students. They will be used as part of the NSF-sponsored Combined Research and Curriculum Program on Electronic Packaging and Materials. Prof. Taya noted that adapting the PC with Proshare technology to teaching a lab course off campus will be a challenge. Their current thinking is that distant students will come on campus to do the laboratory assignments on weekends or perhaps during the summer. Developing software for a virtual lab is another option, but Prof. Taya is concerned about eliminating the real hands-on experience for the student. I. Using the Internet Multicast Backbone for Distance Teaching Presented by Prof. Thomas K. Miller III, Assistant Dean for Educational Technology, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University (tkm@eos.ncsu.edu) Prof. Miller described an experiment in distance teaching via internet-conveyed, many-to-many multicasting using a multicast backbone (MBone). He noted that MBone allows for synchronous distance-teaching (same time, different locations) rather than the asynchronous' mode of Web-based conference tools. The project was set up with some specific metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach. Based on prior research, they did not expect to see a significant difference in course performance; the question posed was whether the technology would enhance or perhaps hinder the student experience. The MBone requires considerably less bandwidth than the state's broadcast-quality video network (for which only two channels are available; as a result, the video quality was not particularly high). However, the MBone's shared electronic whiteboard facility was used for graphics and materials where high resolution was needed, and thus provided the quality needed for those materials while reducing the overall bandwidth requirement. Prof. Miller noted that the video image was important primarily to give a sense of real-time presence. Having high-quality audio, however, was very important to success. In describing the experiment's results, Prof. Miller said that graduate-level students who had previously taken courses by viewing a videotape at their distant sites greatly preferred the "live" environment of the MBone multicast. An interesting result was that students on campus (at the lecture site) appreciated having the active participation from the off-campus students, who contributed a working engineer's perspective. The instructors found that total course interactions with synchronous students entailed about the same amount of work, whether the students were on campus or at the distant sites. Far more effort was required to work with a third group of students who continued to take the course by the asynchronous, videotape route. The videotape students interacted by telephone or electronic mail rather than in the class sessions. Several other participants agreed that the workload on teachers from asynchronous interactions could be overwhelming. Prof. Miller also remarked that there were still some problems with reliability of the technology. J. Delivery Technologies in the APOGEE and UCEE Programs at USC Presented by Prof. Jed S. Lyons, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of South Carolina (lyons@sc.edu) Prof. Lyons described the current practice for delivering distance education in the APOGEE and UCEE programs. Teaching sessions (lectures) are delivered by distributing videotapes to students. For laboratory work, Prof. Lyons described the benefits for distant students of being able to link into a UNIX server on campus to use the Finite Element Analysis modeling software. SUMMARY Many facets of the education process can involve a remote or "distance" component, including student-teacher interactions, laboratories, and mentoring. Education is a complex process. Using today's technology, the education process can take place anytime, anywhere. The most significant issues, needs, and concerns identified by workshop participants dealt with: 1) Laboratory courses, materials, and operation, along with the issue of hands-on experimentation at different locations; 2) Faculty reward system and their buy-in to distance education; 3) How to overcome loss of face-to-face contact in both student-advisor and team interactions; 4) Assessment at a distance, including: assigning grades and exams, honesty issues related to homework and hand-ins, and exam administration; 5) Developing student communication skills students' skills in group oral presentations, etc.; 6) Facilitating learner interactions with the instructor/mentor; 7) Dealing with differing student learning styles when interacting with technology; 8) Technology selection models; 9) Maintaining quality and standards; 10) Training the engineering educator to use distance education technology, courseware, etc., effectively; 11) Need for budget restructuring (since the current budget structure does not provide for the life-cycle costs of maintaining and upgrading distance-learning courseware or technology after it is initially developed or acquired). Table 1. Issues, Needs, and Concerns in Delivering Engineering Education at a Distance -- and Perceived Importance _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | Voting(c) | | Item(a) | Description(b) | Pts. Pers. | _______________________________________________________________________________ | I. Technology Issues | _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | 1. | a. Delivering laboratory materials | 52 | 8 | | | b. Cost-effective methods for laboratory | | | | | course | | | | | c. Laboratory tours | | | | | d. Virtual laboratories | | | | | e. Remotely operated laboratories | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 2. | Technology selection models | 18 | 3 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 3. | Future delivery technology: [what will be and]| 16 | 2 | | | how to plan for it? | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 4. | Lack of software standards [and the problem | 15 | 3 | | | updating in response to] version changes | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 5. | Hardware and software interoperability | 13 | 3 | | | standard are needed. | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 6. | Internet integration [integrating engineering | 1 | 1 | | | education products with the Internet] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 7. | Time delay in reception | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 8. | Application of built-in high-end video | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 9. | Equipment reliability and availability | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 10. | Importance of electronic web boards [also | | | | | called "white boards"] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 11. | Inexpensive, lifelike video is needed. | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 12. | Typing is inefficient [as a mode of input and | | | | | response for students and instructors] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | II. Teaching and Learning Issues | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 13. | [How to] overcome loss of face-to-face | 30 | 5 | | | contact [in both] student-advisor and team | | | | | [interactions] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 14. | Developing student communication skills | 25 | 4 | | | [students' skill in group oral presentations, | | | | | etc.] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 15. | Facilitating learner interactions with the | 25 | 4 | | | instructor/mentor | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 16. | [Dealing with differing] student learning | 19 | 5 | | | styles [when interacting] with technology | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 17. | [How to promote] active learning at a distance| 17 | 2 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 18. | Need for explicit models of learning and | 9 | 2 | | | structure of knowledge | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 19. | Communication skills [how to deal with | 8 | 1 | | | communication skill differences of students] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 20. | Experiential versus reflective learning | 8 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 21. | Student interaction [how to provide for | 5 | 1 | | | interaction among students?] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 22. | [How to handle] language barriers | 1 | 1 | | | [particularly when providing distance | | | | | education to] other countries | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 23. | [How to move from an emphasis on] independent | | | | | to [more opportunities for] collaborative | | | | | learning | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | III. Faculty Issues | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 24. | Faculty reward system | 30 | 6 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 25. | Faculty buy-in [to distance education] | 16 | 4 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 26. | Training the teacher [training the | 16 | 3 | | | engineering educator to use distance education| | | | | technology, courseware, etc., effectively) | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 27. | Course development support | 16 | 2 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 28. | Increased course development time | 13 | 4 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 29. | [Effect of distance education on] graduate | 11 | 3 | | | student pipeline | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 30. | Changing faculty roles | 11 | 3 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 31. | Collaborative efforts for [course] material | 11 | 3 | | | development | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 32. | Concerns about intellectual property | 7 | 2 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 33. | Restructure courses for distance delivery | 5 | 2 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 34. | Relation [of faculty development of | | | | | courseware] to traditional publishing | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | IV. Institutional Issues | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 35. | Budget restructuring problem [current budget | 15 | 3 | | | structure does not provide for cost of | | | | | maintaining and upgrading distance-learning | | | | | courseware or technology (life-cycle costs) | | | | | after it is initially developed or acquired] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 36. | Effect of technology cost on the pricing of | 14 | 3 | | | education | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 37. | Cross-institutional programs | 10 | 2 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 38. | Competition with industry and other education | 9 | 2 | | | providers | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 39. | a. Potential changes in university structure | 7 | 1 | | | b. Confrontations with unions [over distance | | | | | education practices] | | | | | c. Distance learning [could lead to] | | | | | downsizing in engineering education | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 40. | How to institutionalize distance learning | 6 | 2 | | | practices | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 41. | Maintenance of flexibility in the face of | 5 | 1 | | | rapid changes | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 42. | Library Access | 4 | 2 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 43. | Course duplication across universities | 4 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 44. | Course advertising, especially at remote | 3 | 1 | | | locations | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 45. | Infrastructure development | 2 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 46. | Quarter versus semester systems | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 47. | Increased student-faculty ratio costs | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 48. | Lack of boundaries | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 49. | Lack of course similarity among different | | | | | colleges | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | V. Process Issues | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 50. | Hands-on experimentation at different | 24 | 3 | | | locations | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 51. | Demand for student-centered delivery (i.e., | 13 | 3 | | | when and where student want it) | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 52. | Getting students together sometime-is it | 7 | 1 | | | needed? | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 53. | Just-in-time distance learning for industrial | 4 | 2 | | | audiences | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 54. | One cutting-edge laboratory, different | | | | | locations [does distance education increase | | | | | opportunities to have a cutting-edge | | | | | laboratory because it can be used in multiple | | | | | learning sites?] | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 55. | Fairness, e.g., timing fees | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 56. | What is unique about distance learning? | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 57. | National Engineering Education Delivery | | | | | System (NEEDS) | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | VI. Demographic Issues | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 58. | Make available collaborative opportunities | 9 | 1 | | | among diverse people | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 59. | Urban versus rural; access to sites | 9 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 60. | Getting industry students | 7 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 61. | Distance site support | 7 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 62. | National Technological University-where and | 4 | 1 | | | how does it fit in? | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 63. | International distance learning via satellite | 3 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 64. | Decreasing student homogeneity [and issues it | | | | | raises for reaching a more diverse engineering| | | | | student population | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 65. | High undergraduate attrition rate for mature | | | | | students | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 66. | Serving the existing workforce | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | VII. Quality Issues | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 67. | a. Assessment at a distance, assigning grades | 28 | 6 | | | and exams | | | | | b. Honesty issues related to homework and | | | | | hand-ins | | | | | c. Exam administration | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 68. | Maintaining quality and standards | 18 | 2 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 69. | Getting good content | 6 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 70. | Second-class student syndrome | 1 | 1 | _______________________________________________________________________________ | 71. | Assessment and evaluation | | | _______________________________________________________________________________ (a) Numbering is provided for ease of reference. See note "c" for explanation of ordering within categories. (b) Items divided into lettered subitems represent sets of related, initial suggestions that were combined following discussion. Brackets indicate editorial additions to clarify context of an item. (c) Within each category, items are listed in order of vote preference (implying perceived importance) -- first by total points voted, then by number of persons voting for that item. Table 2. Applicability of Identified Current Practices to Identified High-Preference Issues _____________________________________________________________________________ | Current Practices| | | | | | | | | | | |High-Preference Issues | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 1/50. Laboratory & hands-on | | | | | | | | | | | | experience | | | X | | | X | | | X | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 24/25. Faculty reward systems & | | | | | | | | | | | | buy-in | | | | X | | | | | | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 13. Loss of face-to-face contact | | X | | | X | | X | X | X | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 67. Assessment at a distance | | | | | | | | | | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 14. Student communication skills | X | | | | | | X | X | | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 15. Instructor/learner | | | | | | | | | | | | interactions | X | X | | | | | X | X | X | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 16. Learning styles and | | | | | | | | | | | | technology | | | | | | | | | | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 2. Technology selection models | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 68. Maintaining quality & | | | | | | | | | | | | standards | X | X | | | | | | | | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 26. Training the teacher | X | X | | | | | | | | | _____________________________________________________________________________ | 35. Budget restructuring problem | | | | X | | | | | | | _____________________________________________________________________________ Current Practices A. Control of World Wide Web content B. Two issues in incorporating distance learning in an engineering program C. Using an on-campus data acquisition system as data resource D. Distance learning administration unit E. TV and video-conferencing technology options F. Experience with distance teaching a course in rapid prototyping G. Facilitating interaction with Hypernews H. Televised instruction and Intel proshare I. Using the Internet Multicast backbone for distance education J. Delivery technologies in the APOGEE and UCEE programs at USC High-Preference Issues (numbers refer to listing in Table 1) 1. a. Delivering laboratory materials; b. cost-effective methods for laboratory courses; c. Laboratory tours; d. virtual laboratories; e. remotely operated laboratories. 50. Hands-on experimentation at different locations 24. Faculty reward system 25. Faculty buy-in [to distance education 13. [How to] overcome loss of face-to-face contact [in both] student-advisor and team [interactions] 67. a. Assessment at a distance, assigning grades and exams; b. honesty issues related to homework and hand-ins; c. exam administration 14. Developing student communication skills [students' skills in group oral presentations, etc. 15. Facilitating learner interactions with the instructor/mentor 16. [Dealing with differing] student learning styles [when interacting] with technology 2. Technology selection models 68. Maintaining quality and standards 26. Training the teacher [training the engineering educator to use distance education technology, courseware, etc., effectively] 35. Budget restructuring problem [current budget structure does not provide for cost of maintaining and upgrading distance-learning courseware or technology (life-cycle costs) after it is initially developed or acquired] _______________________________________________________________________________ BUILDING EFFECTIVE DISSEMINATION PROCESSES Chair: Karen Frair Director Foundation Coalition University of Alabama Facilitators: Jack Elzinga Professor and Chairman Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering University of Florida Jack Marr Professor Psychology Department Georgia Institute of Technology Two sessions of this workshop, in the morning and the afternoon, examined the topic of dissemination from two different points of view. Participants in the morning session discussed the topic from the standpoint of different audiences to whom engineering education innovations are disseminated. The afternoon group examined the topic according to various questions about processes and problems in dissemination. AUDIENCES FOR DISSEMINATION Four audiences for the dissemination of engineering education innovations are: colleagues on local campus; other campuses in the same NSF program; campuses outside NSF programs; and non-university stakeholders, such as precollege educators, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology(ABET), and NSF.  Morning workshop participants formed groups for each of these four audiences and developed responses to three questions about successful dissemination efforts: 1. What process have you used (or are you familiar with) that was successful for disseminating an engineering education innovation to your audience? 2a. How do you define success in the dissemination process? 2b. How do you measure success? 2c. What evidence do you have regarding the success of the dissemination process? 3. How do you think the dissemination process could be improved? Dissemination at the Local Campus (i.e., the campus where the innovation was developed) 1) Successful Avenues for Dissemination Participants reported positive experiences with the following: o Using the World Wide Web and multimedia facilities for dissemination o Multidisciplinary teams o Presentations for administrators, faculty, and students o Articles in university newsletters and papers o Informal social networks (may be especially effective for promoting multidisciplinary activities). 2) Definition, Measures, and Evidence of Success Success is the achievement of desired goals. Areas to measure as evidence include: o Copying of ideas by others o The number of Web site "hits" o Citations of work, including anecdotal mentions at a deans' meeting Regarding Internet dissemination, it is possible to gauge the quality of Web site hits, in addition to the number, by looking at such things as the duration of the hit and the amount of material that is downloaded. (Of course, it is not possible to infer from this data whether the material is actually used.) The Web site as a tool for dissemination is more appropriate for students than for deans and university administrators, for whom multimedia presentations are probably more effective. Evaluation of learning effectiveness is an important aspect of dissemination. The results of such evaluations are central to identifying which innovations work. 3) Improvements Needed at Campus Level o Hardware-software infrastructure o Expertise in multimedia presentations o Active recruitment of prospective students, especially for non-required innovative courses o Innovators should lobby "centers of influence" (i.e. administrators and deans) for the resources needed to disseminate innovations o A teaching award program, in which effective processes are recognized and rewarded, can be an incentive for innovation. Dissemination to Other Institutions Participating in the Same NSF Program 1) Successful Avenues for Dissemination o Presentations and networking at conferences o Newsletters o Faculty teachers' retreat o Networking within a coalition, i.e., video conferences o Short courses, especially for highly specialized information (recognizing that this is difficult to do for lower level, fundamental engineering education) o Web site o Using an innovation developed on another campus may involve adapting the innovation for use in a different environment. 2) Definitions, Evidence, and Measures of Success Success here is a matter of getting out the information effectively. Evidence of success can be measured in terms of: o Number of responses received to communications requesting acknowledgment o Awareness of the project, as evidenced by references in presentations and papers, as well as in informal discussions o Adoption or adaptation of the project or pieces of it in other places. 3) Ways to Improve Dissemination Between Campuses o Faculty exchange between campuses o Funding for dissemination activities o Address the "originality" stigma ("not invented here") against using something anyone else has developed, and the stigma against collaboration -- i.e., in tenure, the emphasis is on individual work, versus joint activities. An Engineering Education Coalition is an ideal structure to develop surveys and assess and disseminate innovations. Non-NSF Programs What was intended here are all academic institutions outside the particular NSF programs -- i.e., the engineering education community generally, not only nationally but also worldwide. This includes two-year as well as four-year institutions with engineering programs. 1) Successful Avenues for Dissemination The group identified two kinds of dissemination processes: passive and active. Priorities are indicated by asterisks (three asterisks is highest priority; no asterisk is lowest). Passive: o** Publication in nationally accepted peer review journals. o** Direct mailings (e.g., newsletters and manuals to engineering departments), World Wide Web, and other electronic dissemination o National and special conferences Active: o*** Focused workshops o*** Proposal development with other campuses o** Focused partnerships -- i.e., coalitions of schools devoted to this issue; partnerships with industry o** Faculty exchange o** "Champion" identification -- involve someone on campus who recognizes the need for innovation o Student exchange o Multidisciplinary teams 2) Definition, Measures, and Evidence of Success Measures: o*** Track the number of students affected o*** Track the number of campuses affected o*** Survey stakeholders -- students, administrators, faculty, industry o*** Citation indexing o** External funding o* Identify and analyze resulting curriculum changes o* Conduct assessment and evaluation at the receiving institution, not just at the campus where the innovation was developed o Feedback from faculty and other users o Calculate retention rate of students for courses in which innovations are tried o Number of workshop attendees o Count hits on the Web site; number of items requested o Workshop evaluations Evidence: o Strong interest in the innovation at engineering conferences and workshops o National media recognition o High activity level on the Web site Perhaps the best evidence of success is the adoption, adaptation, and continued use of the innovation at other campuses. Institutional "buy-in" is another strong indicator that the innovation has succeeded. 3) Improvements Needed for Dissemination on Other (Non-participating) Campuses o*** Identify future champions o** Pursue modular approach to improve robustness O** Demonstrate the effectiveness of the innovation, show the benefits clearly o* Cost-benefit analysis o* Take steps to change the "culture" at the receiving institution in order to overcome the "not invented here" syndrome o Provide source code o Adaptability o Simplicity. Cost-effectiveness is a significant issue. An innovation may be effective in terms of learning but not cost-effective. For example, a high faculty-to-student ratio is effective, but is usually not feasible in terms of cost. Also, initial development and implementation requires a big investment in start-up costs. The payoffs -- reaching cost-effectiveness -- come later. A question that should be asked is whether funding for dissemination and adaptation of an innovation takes money away from the development of innovation. Non-University Stakeholders (e.g., industry, ABET, K-12) 1) Successful Avenues for Dissemination o Programs for grades 9-12, summer institutes o Tech Prep (high school) programs o NSF science camp o Workshops during the semester that include industrial participants, to obtain input from industry o Industrial short courses o Marketing of graduates o Kits, viewgraphs, videotape distribution to precollege students o Courseware, textbooks 2) Definition, Measures, and Evidence of Success Success: o Making "believers" in the technology out of other faculty, teachers o Success of graduates in industry o Industry perception of benefits of short courses in terms of profits Measures: o The number of requests for course materials o The number of graduates in a relevant industry o Recruitment and hiring by industry o The number of K-12 students entering the engineering school Evidence: o Funding from NSF, industry, campus o Retention of students o Implementation of technology or innovation by industry o Use of the innovation by student participants o Design competitions o Requests for more course materials 3) Improvements Needed for Dissemination of Innovations to Non-university Stakeholders o Develop vehicles for presentations by experienced students to precollege students o Educate precollege teachers about innovations o Provide onsite demonstrations in industry to show how the innovation can be moved from the lab to the factory and lead to increased productivity or competitiveness o Impart a sense of ownership of innovation to others (in order to complete dissemination) It is important to recognize that industry is also a source, not just a recipient, of innovations in education and training. Common Points for All Morning Groups The following points were common to all four of these groups addressing different audiences: 1) Successful Avenues for Dissemination o Web site o Direct mailings, especially newsletters o Multimedia information -- i.e., kits, viewgraphs, tapes o Articles in peer-reviewed journals o Presentations: locally, for deans, administrators, faculty, researchers, students, industry representatives; and, more generally, at professional conferences o Focused workshops for different audiences o Collaboration -- interdisciplinary efforts; coalitions; industry-university partnerships 2a) Definition of Success o Achievement of desired goals, which range from getting out the information to institutionalization of the innovation o High level of response and interest, awareness of project o Adoption and continued use of innovation o Success of graduates 2b) Things to Measure o Implementation -- whether ideas are copied and/or adapted o Number of hits on Web site o Citations of work in publications and, more generally, being cited as a model by deans, etc. 2c) Evidence o Interactions among groups o Enrollment o Career paths of students reflecting impact on their education o Contributions of engineering graduates -- i.e., papers produced, leadership roles 3) Improvements Needed o Infrastructure: hardware, software, communication networks o Expertise in assessment, multimedia techniques o Changes in views of innovation -- i.e., individuals and institutions need to accept and emphasize innovation in faculty rewards, industry training programs o Outreach to centers of influence -- i.e., administrators, deans, industry o Faculty exchange o Funding for dissemination o Reduce stigma against adopting someone else's work o Increase sense of ownership of innovation among potential users o Demonstrated benefits and value of innovation. TOPICAL ANALYSES In the afternoon session of the dissemination workshop, subgroups were organized according to the three questions that had been the focus of each the morning groups: 1) Processes/Mechanisms for Dissemination 2) Definitions and Measures of Success 3) Issues, Needs, Problems, and Solutions Each group presented a list of ideas, which are given below. Processes/Mechanisms for Dissemination o Workshops that provide hands-on experience with innovations o Web access o Education coalition meetings provide an opportunity for dissemination, both formally and informally, and for collaboration o National Technological University and other short courses o Presentations at conferences, especially if there is post-presentation discussion o Publication in peer review journals, newsletters, and fliers o Conferences with industry specifically for dissemination o Articles in non-traditional journals, such as trade journals o Multimedia resource packets, e.g., with manuals and tapes. The issue here is how to advertise the availability of this information. One idea is to establish an electronic clearinghouse. o Tailor dissemination efforts to specific customers and target audiences. Definitions/Measures of Success Dissemination involves two things: process and content. Broadly defined, successful dissemination is an awareness within the relevant professional community of the goals, status, and outcomes of a particular project. It is important to define the target audience and what they require in terms of process and content. Innovations must be distributed to appropriate audiences in a form acceptable to those audiences. The dissemination process must include goals that can serve as indicators against which success can be measured. The information being disseminated must have value, both positive and negative. If something doesn't work, people should know about it. The innovation must be readily usable and credible. Measures include the following: o Number of inquiries following the dissemination effort o Papers produced, number and frequency o Is there cross-institutional interaction? o Student response -- i.e., the number involved o Number of citations o Number of spinoffs Adoption of an innovation as a whole is unlikely. Adapting different components is more common. It was noted that, compared to five years ago, there is less resistance among faculty to hearing about and learning about innovations developed elsewhere. Dissemination should not be contingent on acceptance at the home institution. Dissemination of work in progress is important. This allows feedback that is useful during the formative stages, and it also promotes later acceptance of innovation. Issues/Solutions In disseminating innovations, the following questions need to be addressed: o Why disseminate? What is the motivation: recognition or competition? What are the incentives? o How can an individual retain intellectual property rights, such as a patent, copyright, royalties, etc.? o Is extra funding available to support a dissemination effort following the development and implementation of an innovation? o What are the faculty incentives? Innovations in teaching and dissemination should be recognized in tenure and should be a factor in advancement. Participants noted that the system currently does not provide obvious incentives for dissemination of engineering education innovations. Deans will ask, "Why should I pay for this when it won't help my institution?" Indeed, what incentives do they have to provide matching funds for dissemination that will benefit other campuses? Deans should recognize that, within multi-institution partnerships such as an engineering education coalition, for example, there can be mutual exchanges and benefits; therefore, they have an incentive to commit up-front to coalition efforts. Other possible incentives: ABET criteria, which also will prompt funding for these activities; possible competitive and marketing advantages; and the availability of matching funds from other institutions or from NSF. There are procedural barriers to introducing new courses into the curriculum. For example, a course can be sidetracked in the approval process if an individual faculty member objects. One solution is the modular approach, which allows adoption of pieces. Concepts Learned Participants were asked to indicate the single most important concept learned during this workshop. The response was as follows: o Lack of incentives for dissemination o Need for strategic planning for outreach/dissemination activities o Barriers to dissemination o Importance of content and audience in dissemination o Difficulty in defining success for dissemination o Innovation is an uphill battle even after it is accomplished o Importance of identifying the customer o Why should individuals/institutions disseminate? o Other institutions have the same problems regarding disseminating, implementation, and faculty incentives. SUMMARY Several broad, common themes emerged from the workshop. First, dissemination of innovations should be planned up-front, as part of the design. It is crucial to identify the audience first. Personal interactions between users and developers (through workshops, conferences, etc.) are very important for ensuring effective subsequent dissemination. Innovations should be developed in modules, so that users can choose all or part of the innovation; this facilitates dissemination. The World Wide Web is a major avenue for dissemination of innovations (although there is a wide range of quality in educational tools on the Web). There needs to be better documentation of the processes through which innovations are developed. Finally, there is a need to change the faculty culture and faculty reward system to increase the recognition of the value of innovation. Motivation for innovation and dissemination of innovations is weak at present; marketing is not in the "game plan" of academic engineering. The motivation can be improved by NSF insisting on solid, innovative dissemination plans for educational developments -- i.e., creativity in dissemination as well as in the product. Additionally, faculty could be rewarded for adapting innovations made elsewhere. _______________________________________________________________________________ INSTITUTIONALIZING ENGINEERING EDUCATION INNOVATIONS Chair: William Swart Dean of Engineering and Technology Old Dominion University Facilitators: Jack Lohmann Associate Dean of Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Rodney Harrigan Associate Dean of Engineering North Carolina A&T State University OVERVIEW This workshop examined ways in which engineering departments could solidify and make permanent the innovations they had introduced. The innovations discussed ranged from the addition of a single course to a complete overhaul of the engineering curriculum. Participants included engineering deans and faculty, along with a number of education specialists. Change, as defined by the workshop participants, is something that creates a new future. Resistance to change is natural -- and often inevitable. Successful change, therefore, requires that resistance be overcome. Institutionalization of change further requires that the stakeholders -- most often individuals from the faculty and administration -- accept the change. Stakeholder buy-in is so important that it was mentioned by almost every breakout group (see discussion below). Strategies for institutionalization vary. In some instances, change is best introduced one element at a time, either alone or as a coordinated part of an overall vision. In other cases, it works best to present the entire package all at once. In either case, the creation of a change(tm)ready environment at the university is essential in order to have an atmosphere conducive to change. As part of this environment, a system of rewards should be in place to recognize those who promote successful innovation. Even more importantly, a change-ready environment empowers innovators to move ahead. Communication with the stakeholders is another key element to institutionalizing change. "Stakeholders" should, under these circumstances, be defined broadly to include all levels within the faculty, from the university to the college to the department to individuals. Stakeholders within the administration should include the chair, dean, and provost. Ultimately, institutionalization of an innovation can be considered a success when the change is no longer being called an experiment and when it is off special funding. With the focus of the workshop being on how to get innovation accepted, there was an emphasis on using lessons learned, either in the institution or elsewhere, as an important complement to defining best practices. BEST PRACTICES The morning and afternoon sessions of the workshop together had a total of ten breakout groups, each of which developed a number of suggestions for best practices in institutionalizing engineering education innovations. These suggestions are summarized below by group, with associated discussion. One of the breakout groups developed a group motto: "Arrogance breeds isolation among innovators." If there was a theme for this workshop as a whole, the motto captured it. Breakout groups almost uniformly focused on reaching out to others, broadening support, and communicating the need for change. Group #1 This group suggested four best practices: 1. Motivate the faculty by providing resources with which to adopt innovation. 2. Increase stakeholder demand for change by instituting industrial partnerships. 3. Ensure effectiveness and value by systematically gathering significant data on the impact of the change and whether it meets the goals set. 4. Enlist administration support to reward performance; include educational innovation in strategic planning. The first of these includes encouragement and reward for participation in faculty development programs. Specific rewards for promoting innovation included the offer of faculty release time, salary increases, and the incorporation of educational scholarship criteria in faculty review procedures. The second best practice stemmed from a discussion of industry needs. By learning what engineering specialties are required in the ever-changing workplace, innovators can bolster their plans with support from the outside. Industry can be drawn into a position of partnering with the engineering department when the department shows sensitivity to emerging markets -- the need for training in the area of bioengineering was given as an example. In discussing the third practice, which had to do with evaluating the innovation, the group noted the need to agree on criteria for determining effectiveness. It is important that the evaluation be based on realistic data and expectations. Among the expectations should be that of cost-effectiveness. As far as the final recommendation, the group determined that an environment of change would, by definition, include educational innovation as part of the strategic planning process in the university. This would orient not just the individual departments but also the administration to reward innovators. Group #2 Recommendations of the second breakout group had some overlap with those of the first. Its best practices include the following: 1. Promote faculty buy-in through workshops and training. Rewards of released time, additional resources, and awards are key. 2. Independent evaluation and assessment of the impact of the change (similar to number 3 above). 3. Encourage student involvement. This includes such applications as mentoring, the use of teaching assistants, presentations, and other means. Group #3 The third breakout group produced three best practices: 1. Provide a credible justification for change. 2. Be flexible in order to overcome resistance. 3. Communicate through all possible reasonable means. In the discussion of the first point, the group noted the importance of documenting the consequences of failure to change. In some cases, they emphasized, change is a requirement in order to stay current. By projecting future outcomes, innovators can make a stronger case. Broad input from both internal and external sources can enhance the case for change. Flexibility, the second recommendation, involves addressing all concerns -- even the trivial -- from all stakeholders. The group advised that innovators articulate the value added by the change and be willing to communicate continuously with all concerned. This led to the final recommendation, that innovators communicate through all possible, reasonable means. Suggestions for this included World Wide Web pages, university catalogs, and other mechanisms. Group #4 Like the other groups, the fourth breakout group noted the role of the stakeholders. This group recommended the following practices: 1. Get a buy-in at top level. 2. Develop the innovation with a team of diverse stakeholders and understand the values these stakeholders use in making decisions. 3. Formulate a step-by-step plan, keeping in mind that the first step is crucial. When seeking upper-level support, look at the bottom line; document the success of a pilot program and, where possible, provide funding incentives. Regarding the second recommendation, the group noted that different stakeholders will think differently from each other. Part of working with a constituency is understanding how that constituency thinks. Some stakeholders will base their decisions on financial factors; others will be concerned with the curriculum, the processes used in the classroom, and other factors. In the third practice, the group emphasized that a timeline based on carefully thought-out implementation schedules will keep the action going and determine who does what, when -- critical considerations when multiple parties are involved. Group #5 This group identified the following as best practices: 1. Justify and articulate the need for change. 2. Identify and target key players and resources at all levels -- another reference to the role stakeholders play in institutionalizing change. 3. Reward and evaluate innovation. The group explained the first practice in terms of the need to develop data to support an innovation. Often, it is possible to rely on previous research and experience to buttress the case for change. It also helps to be able to match a specific innovation with the mission and long-term educational objectives of the institution. In its second recommendation, the group made reference to the key role of stakeholders. Among the stakeholders identified as important were professional organizations, political players (who might be involved in university budgeting or management), and various funding sources. Group #6 This group framed the issue of institutionalizing innovation in what might be considered "private sector" terms, as follows: 1. Gain the early involvement of faculty and stakeholders. 2. Market the change -- communicate with the stakeholders frequently. 3. Do a sales job: assess the need; use data to sell the change; rely on feedback and pilot programs where needed. Group #7 By contrast, this group focused on vision -- especially the need to have a distinct vision when first implementing change. Their recommendations include the following: 1. Where possible, use the energies of any internal champion who might emerge. 2. Establish external champion(s). 3. Ensure timeliness by reporting to faculty and students. The group suggested that the internal champion might be a single individual from the faculty, or a group of well-respected advocates. The external champion could come from the administration of the institution, or from industry, state, or national sources. In terms of reporting to constituents of the innovation, the group advised periodic and frequent updates, along with the publication of reasonable timelines. Other recommendations that did not fall into the group's three main suggestions include: achieve visible support, build a broad consensus, and evaluate continually. Group #8 This group suggested the following three best practices: 1. Make innovation central to the mission of the university. 2. Institute strategic initiatives for internal funding to promote bottom-up innovation. 3. Communicate urgency. The members of the group felt strongly that change would be easier to implement if the university valued innovation and embraced it as part of the university mission. The recommendation to communicate urgency dealt with ensuring that others understand the need for change and innovate to meet that need. Group #9 The ninth breakout group concentrated primarily on reaching out to the various constituencies for specific purposes: 1. Bring industry representatives on campus to address the need for change and to provide outside funding. 2. Benchmark and evaluate to support the change. 3. Persist in developing support at all levels. 4. Create a win-win situation. Members of this group had had some success in acquiring external funding and seemed sensitive to industry as a constituency. Not only did they want to see industry representatives on campus to discuss what was needed from the schools, they also deemed industry as a good source for benchmarking and evaluation, in terms of where graduates went to work. Benchmarking against an outside institution as well as evaluation were both seen as on-going, including periodically after the innovation was well-established. In developing broad-based support, this group agreed with others that intellectually committed advocates were more effective than tepid support from all quarters. The final recommendation was to reward innovators, regardless of which type of stakeholder they might be; faculty might prefer released time, administrators could be rewarded with money, and industry partners would in all likelihood appreciate some form of public recognition, for example. Beyond these primary recommendations for best practices, the group discussed: the use of capitol investment and dedicated space as leverage; working outside the traditional approval structure; and facing long-term financial issues to ensure continuation of the innovation. Group #10 The last breakout group selected the following as key best practices: 1. Involve stakeholders, to include employers, students, faculty, and junior faculty. 2. Add innovation to the values for which faculty are rewarded. 3. Develop lab programs. This group also recommended sidestepping the bureaucracy, where possible, by using independent study courses for interdisciplinary work. They advised gaining support of different stakeholders in ways that were significant to the stakeholder groups. Faculty who innovate or promote change might be rewarded with a decreased teaching load, salary increases, more favorable tenure criteria, or additional lab space. Lab space was deemed a factor in attracting industry support and extending resources, where possible. Consensus on Best Practices Collectively, the ten breakout groups included the following several times among their recommended best practices: 1. Ensure faculty buy-in, and reward faculty for innovation. 2. Consider the needs of diverse stakeholders, and provide rewards for their participation in innovation. 3. Communicate the need for the innovation, its benefits, and how it is to be implemented. Answer all questions, even the trivial ones. 4. Bolster the need for innovation by looking outside the institution. 5. Institute impartial evaluation of the innovation in practice, including cost-effectiveness, and do this repeatedly. "WORST PRACTICES" Two breakout groups also identified some worst practices, activities that almost ensure that an innovation will get derailed. These caveats, or "don'ts" include the following: o If you overdevelop an idea, you will not get needed input from others. o Data do not instantly sell a project. o Don't assume that the project is such a good idea it will happen on its own, and therefore do nothing. o Be careful about divulging timetables, for they can lock you in. o Don't rush implementation. o Problems can develop when an idea is too highly endorsed by high levels. o Avoid packaging the innovation in buzzwords that have a lot of baggage. o Don't be a lone wolf. o Don't be arrogant in believing that you have all the useful ideas. o Don't lack humility. o Don't get discouraged early. o Don't take criticism personally. o Don't go for the money instead of a sound philosophical idea. o Don't fail to understand your campus politics and structure before applying lessons learned from elsewhere. o Don't fail to understand the decision-makers. o Don't forget to plan for continuation of funding. o Don't neglect proper collaboration. SUMMARY For the plenary session of the conference, the workshop chair, Dr. Swart, summarized the best practices and lessons learned regarding institutionalization of education innovations. o Involve and motivate all stakeholders, and do it at an early stage. o Understand stakeholder values. o Develop a credible justification for change. o Find internal and external "champions." o Formulate a step-by-step plan for implementing change, including identifying required resources. o Communicate through all possible and reasonable means. o Develop flexible strategies to deal with resistance. o Conduct independent, data-based benchmarking, assessment, and evaluation. o Reward innovation and all those who achieve it, promulgate it, manage it, and accept it. o Innovation should be made an integral part of the institutional mission. o Use strategic initiatives for internal funding in order to achieve "bottoms-up" innovation. o Use industry representatives on campus to address the need for change. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL TOPICS WORKSHOPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o Case Studies Workshop on Evaluation of Engineering Education Projects o Workshop on Effective Processes to Give Engineering Educators Easy Access to Quality-Reviewed Electronic Courseware ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ CASE STUDIES WORKSHOP ON EVALUATION OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION Chair: Barbara Olds Professor Div. of Liberal Arts & International Studies Colorado School of Mines Facilitator: Ron Miller Associate Professor Department of Chemical Engineering Colorado School of Mines Chairperson Barbara Olds described the objectives of the workshop, which were to: o learn about the evaluation process; o begin to develop measurable research questions for your project; and o learn about available evaluation resources. A paper on this topic, authored by Olds and facilitator Ron Miller, appears as Attachment 1 following this workshop summary. Small groups of participants were asked to list the steps they thought essential to evaluating a project. Lists compiled by the morning and afternoon sessions of the workshop are consolidated as follows. 1. Determine why an evaluation is needed. Identify sponsor requirements. 2. Set goals (different from objectives: goals are closer to statements of vision than measurable targets) and compare them with the university's mission statement to ensure they are compatible. 3. Identify stakeholders. 4. Determine the metrics (e.g., decide what to measure and how to measure it). 5. Consider categories of measurements (qualitative versus quantitative). 6. Determine the types of evaluation needed (summative versus formative). 7. Identify the evaluators (ideally, not all should be stakeholders; some should be in a position to be more objective). 8. Ensure funding for evaluation. 9. Develop the evaluation(s). 10. Conduct a formative evaluation (to gather feedback). 11. Conduct a summative evaluation. 12. Define decisions. 13. Analyze data. 14. Identify those who need to know the results of the evaluation. 15. Provide feedback and adjust the project accordingly. 16. Disseminate the results. Ron Miller asked whether participants had thought of approaching the evaluation process as a design problem. He used a diagram of a generic design process (Figure 1) to show that many design steps are similar or identical to steps in the evaluation process. One participant commented that the community involved in a design problem is generally not as complex as the community involved in an education project -- a fact that complicates the design of an evaluation that meets everyone's needs. Miller observed that the point is to show participants that they probably have a wealth of experience that is relevant to developing and conducting an evaluation. Participants discussed ways of ensuring a valid evaluation, such as using a control group. Although most agreed that an evaluation need not be as rigorous as research, some said that people challenging a project want to know which groups are being compared, and there are seldom enough data concerning the status quo to provide a valid contrast with the project. One participant also noted that the Hawthorne effect -- in which new projects yield better (or worse) results than established ones, or people being observed perform better (or worse) than they would otherwise -- might cause an evaluation to yield results that are not valid. Olds and Miller distributed the National Science Foundation's User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation: Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education (NSF 93-152) and reviewed the evaluation process as described in Chapter Two of the handbook. The following points were emphasized: o Formative evaluations are conducted midstream and may be used to refine the project; summative evaluations are conducted at the end of the project to assess what the project accomplished. Olds used a cooking analogy to illustrate these two types of evaluations: when the cook tastes the soup, that is formative; when the guests taste the soup, that is summative. o Sound evaluations should use multiple methods and measures whenever possible (qualitative and quantitative, formative and summative), an approach that may be called "triangulation." o Those preparing to evaluate a project should give a lot of attention to formulating detailed research questions and then prioritizing and eliminating questions to create a realistic evaluation. o It is important to cause as little disruption as possible in the collection of data. This point was illustrated with a story of a test given to Colorado State University freshmen, sophomores, and seniors. Participation dwindled so much by the senior year that the comparison lacked validity. o It is important to consider how to communicate information about the evaluation to multiple audiences, such as NSF or other funding organizations, faculty, industry, administrators, and students. o Frequent evaluations will be supported if improvements result from the evaluations. In discussing the percent of a project's budget to be allocated to evaluation, participants noted that the complexity of the multi-institution Engineering Education Coalitions can cause evaluations of large coalition projects to require more than the handbook-recommended 10 percent. Some participants expressed continuing discomfort with qualitative evaluation methods and with the difficulty of determining whether or not a project is working. Miller said that there are good qualitative evaluation methods (for example, ethnographic studies or focus groups) that, when professionally applied, yield valid information concerning students' thoughts and behaviors, just as there are bad quantitative methods that yield meaningless numbers. One participant complained that the evaluation methods, concepts, and tools being presented here and in the Handbook are not new. He and many of his colleagues feel that it is time to develop new evaluation methods. A participant noted that, in his experience, industrial partners tend to dislike evaluations; they are satisfied with observing the results themselves and therefore are unwilling to participate in a structured evaluation. Discussion emphasized the importance of asking questions whose purpose is clear and that can be answered meaningfully, to ensure that both evaluators and stakeholders understand what the evaluation is measuring. Participants also noted the importance of understanding stakeholders' objectives for the project, to ensure that the evaluation will measure achievement of those objectives. Some observed that faculty often don't know how to set measurable objectives. Olds and Miller offered several examples of good vs. bad evaluation questions, noting that good questions and authentic assessments have a reference for comparison, are detailed, yield measurable responses, and are performance- or outcome-based, while bad questions may seem "fuzzy" and produce responses that are not readily measurable. Participants then developed several research questions for evaluating their own projects, using a matrix developed by Olds and Miller. Out of these, each small group selected one or two and tried to identify methods of gathering information to answer the questions. The workshop as a whole reviewed the questions and methods identified by the small groups. The following are the questions and methods discussed by both sessions. Question 1: Regarding a course aimed at teaching skills relevant to working in industry. The research question addressed was, "Can students completing this course present a detailed project proposal that would be accepted by management or sponsors?" The group identified the following components of a successful proposal: o Needs o Objectives o Data o Alternatives o Selection o Communication, including an executive summary. The following methods were proposed for gathering information to answer the question: 1) Judging by an industrial panel that awards a scholarship(s) 2) Evaluation by faculty colleagues 3) Challenges by other students 4) Scoring against a checklist 5) Comparison of the final proposal with a proposal drafted at the beginning of the course 6) Comparison of proposals drafted by students in the class with proposals drafted by a control group (with the comparison being made by an industrial panel) 7) Requiring a proposal to earn a positive evaluation by two out of the following three: industry, faculty, and other students (one problem noted with this method is that even if two out of three do not approve the proposal, the student is nonetheless learning, and that should be noted by the evaluation) 8) Conducting a qualitative evaluation: Do students mention the course in job interviews? The group noted that the school may want to use a different combination of evaluators in a formative evaluation than in a summative evaluation. Question 2: With respect to a course designed to give students a hands-on, participatory introduction to the study of engineering. The following question was examined: Is a hands-on laboratory environment a friendlier entry to engineering for women and minorities than a lecture format? The following methods were proposed to answer the question: 1) Making the hands-on course optional and comparing students who take the lab course with those who take only the lecture course to see which group shows a higher rate of retention. 2) Using any of several instruments available to measure the learning "climate," from sources including Cornell University and the Women in Engineering Program Advocates Network (WEPAN). 3) Using focused interviews as an evaluation technique. Question 3: With regard to a project aimed at shifting students from being passive learners to being active learners, the following question was presented: Does the project create self-learners, as compared (a) to peers who have not been in the project and (b) to the learning styles of project students before and after their participation? Discussion centered around whether this goal can be measured as stated and also whether a project can create self-learners. The following was determined: o Those evaluating the project need a time-rate metric and a success-rate or mastery-rate metric. o This is a global goal, so sub-goals must be defined and measured. Olds observed that many of the questions presented illustrate the need to define measurable objectives carefully. Question 4: What effect does the pattern of group study have on grades? The group proposed the following methods to gather information to answer this question: 1) Collect student self-reports 2) Track and compare the grades of students who participate in group study with the grades of students who do not. Question 5: Can each faculty member identify three or four basic cognitive concepts and use them as he or she develops and implements a course? Group members proposed the following methods to gather information answering this question: 1) Collect faculty self-reports 2) Conduct classroom observations 3) Collect student reports 4) Conduct observations before and after the courses. Question 6: Has the curriculum changed (for example, to meet modern needs)? The information-gathering methods proposed were: 1) Compare old and new catalogs 2) Compare old and new requirements of particular courses. Question 7: Do students in a new Foundation Coalition course understand mechanics (physics) concepts better than students in the traditional course? Question 8: Have the students in the new Foundation Coalition course improved their scores on the Force-Concepts-Inventory test (to a statistically significant degree) over the students in the traditional course? In discussing questions 7 and 8, participants noted that if Foundation Coalition scores are better, one might ask whether the Coalition course is teaching to that test. Participants also said that the department should conduct a qualitative evaluation to determine whether students can effectively transfer and apply the knowledge they gain in the Coalition course. Question 9: With respect to evaluation of a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) project in which students address 80 to 90 steps in the process of developing semiconductor chips, the question asked was, How did students participate in the processing steps? The following methods of gathering data were proposed to answer the question: 1) Measure time spent in the lab 2) Review the logs students keep of their lab activities 3) Have mentors observe student participation 4) Conduct peer reviews 5) Track student participation in daily group meetings. SUMMARY The workshop chair noted that the process of developing a sound evaluation, including identifying goals, selecting methods, and developing a plan for implementing the evaluation, is often as involved as the product, the evaluation itself. Olds and Miller distributed examples of good evaluation questions and methods developed on a matrix, which provides columns to list the project objectives, how the project will meet its goals, how evaluators will measure whether the project is achieving its goals, when the particular evaluations will be conducted, and issues of information dissemination, such as who will receive the information and how to persuade them that the project objectives are being met. This matrix appears as Table 1 in the attached paper by Olds and Miller (Attachment 1). Olds and Miller reviewed evaluation resources available, including the NSF handbook and the sources listed in its bibliography; campus resources, such as evaluation experts, college of education faculty, and institutional researchers; and NSF staff. Olds cautioned that those planning an evaluation must be sensitive to the fact that evaluation is often perceived as threatening, especially if the information will be published or shared with peers. One way to ease this perception is to allow the individuals involved to see their own evaluations and then to see the anonymous mean of the complete evaluation before it is published or shared. It is important that those conducting an evaluation work to establish trust. _______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT 1 Using an Assessment Process to Measure Educational Research Project Success Barbara M. Olds, Ronald L. Miller Colorado School of Mines INTRODUCTION TO THE PROCESS Just as in technical research, conducting high quality scholarship and innovation in educational research requires rigorous assessment and evaluation of project results. Although collecting assessment data and analyzing the results may be more complex in educational research projects, the goal is the same -- to determine as reliably as possible if the stated project objectives have been met. Assessing (collecting and analyzing data) and evaluating (interpreting and reporting the data) the success of a project requires the use of a well-articulated, multi-step process consisting of the following steps [1]: 1) develop research questions, 2) match questions with information-gathering techniques, 3) collect data, 4) analyze data, and 5) provide evaluation information to interested audiences. This process is strikingly similar to better known engineering problem-solving and design processes, suggesting that most engineering educational researchers are more familiar with the attributes of a good project evaluation plan than they probably realize. The objective of this paper is to provide an introduction to the process of assessing and evaluating educational research projects for project directors who are not experienced evaluators. Examples of several project evaluation plans will be discussed to illustrate important concepts and to warn against common pitfalls. THE PROJECT EVALUATION MATRIX We have found that the easiest way to begin developing a project evaluation plan is to use the evaluation matrix shown in Table 1{adapted from [1]}. The matrix includes a series of questions designed to guide project directors through the planning process. Questions are posed to help develop the following aspects of the plan: o The research question(s) o The implementation strategy o The evaluation methods o The timeline o The audience and dissemination strategy Each of these aspects should be treated as iterative and fluid as the project progresses. Additional details to help project directors work through the planning process are discussed below. Table 1 -- Project Evaluation Matrix ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research | Implementation | Evaluation | | Audience | Question | Strategy | Methods | Timeline | Dissemination | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are | How will the | How will you | When will | Who needs to | the | objectives be met?| know the | measurements| know the | project | Which project | objectives | be made? | results? How | objectives? | activities help | have been met?| | can you | What | you meet each | What measures | | convince them | questions | objective? | will be made? | | the objectives | are you | | On whom? | | were met? | trying to | | | | | answer? | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © B.M. Olds and R.L. Miller, 1997 Research Question(s). Developing clear and measurable research question(s) is the key to the success of an evaluation plan. The following steps should be completed to obtain useful research questions [1]: o Clarify project goals and objectives o Identify and involve key stakeholders o Describe the intervention to be evaluated o Formulate potential research questions o Determine the resources available o Prioritize and eliminate questions Many project directors have good ideas about general project goals, but they too rarely spend the time necessary to articulate clear research questions before they undertake the project. They need to ask such questions as "What are the project objectives?" and "What questions are we trying to answer?" before the project gets underway, not at the end. These questions should be clear and measurable -- in our experience many noble but unmeasurable objectives are articulated by project directors. We emphasize the need for clear, specific project objectives and performance measures in research projects. For example, "Does the expert system software work?" is the kind of research question we often see, but what does it mean for software to "work"? A much more measurable question might be to ask, "Do results from the expert system software agree with results from human experts?" Another vague research question might be, "Do students know more about design after completing the new design course?" Again, a term like "know more" is very vague and difficult to measure. However, the research question is much more measurable when rephrased as: "After completing the new design course, can students articulate the design process and use it to complete a project?" Both of the main components of this question -- "articulate the design process" and "use it to complete a project" are measurable. In addition to obtaining measurable research questions, completing the steps listed above will force those working on the project to agree on the project goals and objectives and will help clarify vague terms in their own minds. Not everyone would agree with our rephrasing of the example questions, but they would be forced to agree on what they mean by vague phrases such as "works" and "know." To the extent possible, project directors should articulate performance measures for each research question to be evaluated. A performance measure "defines the level of performance required to meet the objective" [2] and indicates the types of data that will be used to provide supportive evidence. For example, "75% of the students who take the pilot course will remain in electrical engineering two semesters later" represents a measurable level of performance in a project designed to improve retention in electrical engineering. Implementation Strategy. It is important to make sure that research questions and implementation strategies mesh. For example, important questions such as "How will the objectives be met?" and "Which project activities help to meet each objective?" should be answered as the implementation strategy is developed. We have seen assessment plans, for example, with numerous lofty goals for student achievement between entry and graduation. However, when pressed the faculty developing these goals sometimes allow for no place in the curriculum where the goals can be met. For example, if students are to learn the design process, or how to communicate effectively, or gain an understanding of contemporary issues, they must have the opportunity within the curriculum and/or co-curriculum to learn and practice these skills. Just as a researcher carefully plans an experiment, so the project director must carefully plan the implementation of those parts of the project designed to meet specific goals and objectives. Evaluation Methods. Once the research questions and the implementation strategy have been developed, the general methodological approach(es) to the problem should be selected. The basic questions here are "How will you know the objectives have been met?" "What measurements will be made?" "On whom?" The methods selected depend on many factors including time and money available, but several rules of thumb apply: o Explore a range of possible methods, qualitative and quantitative, formative and summative, depending on the research questions. o Whenever possible, use more than one method -- triangulate. o Realize that for this type of research it may be difficult or impossible to obtain purely objective results. However, it is possible to measure very difficult questions with a high degree of precision and reliability. Many assessment measures are possible and available to the interested project director including standardized exams, questionnaires, surveys, focus groups, ethnographic studies, data analysis, protocol analysis, etc. Resources on all of these techniques are widely available {see [1] and [2] for annotated bibliographies}. Once the methods are selected, the data need to be collected and analyzed. During this part of the process the needs of the respondents should be considered and as little disruption as possible should occur. Data collectors must be trained and should be unbiased. Timeline. The key question here is "When will the measurements be made?" Once the data are gathered and prepared for analysis, the initial analysis should be performed based on stated performance measures included in the evaluation plan. Once initial results have been obtained, other analysis can be conducted if appropriate. Finally findings should be integrated and synthesized into a coherent evaluation of the project. Audience/Dissemination. Here the key questions are "Who needs to know the results?" and "How can you convince them the objectives were met?" From the beginning of the project the stakeholders should be identified and their needs analyzed. Different audiences clearly have different agendas and will need different information presented in different ways to be convinced that the project was a success. Evaluation results should be customized to meet the needs of various audiences and delivered in time to be useful. For example, a funding agency such as NSF might be interested in the effect of a newly developed course on aggregate student learning, while college administrators will be interested in the cost/benefit analysis of the course, and parents will be interested in how well their own child learns in the course. All are valid issues and the evaluation plan must address each audience's unique concerns. EVALUATION PLAN EXAMPLES Several generic examples of project evaluation may serve to illustrate the points that we have made. First, we use the example of a piece of expert system software being developed with help from a federal grant. As shown in Table 2, the research question here is: "Do results from expert system software agree with results from human experts?" The implementation strategy is to collect data using both the beta version of the expert system software and traditional interviews conducted by human experts. The evaluation method in this case is a statistical comparison of quantitative results where the software is deemed reliable if the correlation coefficient exceeds 0.8 for a sample of 20 students (here we see a very specific performance measure to define software "reliability"). Measurements will be completed during the second year of the project after the beta version of the software has been written. The statistical results will be used by human experts and programmers to improve the software and results will be disseminated to educators and human experts in the field who will be interested in the possibility of using an expert system to emulate a more costly and time-consuming data-gathering method. Another common type of research question would be similar to this one (Table 3): "Do students in the retention project remain enrolled in college at a higher rate than their peers?" The implementation strategy would involve whatever interventions had been developed in the project to improve retention. The evaluation method would involve collecting and statistically comparing enrollment data for students in the project with enrollment data for their non-participating peers. The timeline might be to collect data at the end of each semester of the project and results may be used by the project directors to improve the project and to convince administrators to institutionalize the project curriculum. A final example from a curriculum development project asks the question (Table 4): "Are students more technically competent after completing a series of subject modules?" The implementation strategy would involve developing appropriate subject modules and using them in class. Evaluating the effect of the modules could be accomplished by asking faculty to assess both the technical competence of each student on an absolute scale and the growth demonstrated by each student as they used the module. Students would also be asked to self-assess their level of competence and amount of growth after studying each module. Faculty assessment of each student would occur at the end of each module, which students would be asked to self-assess at both the beginning and end of each module. Assessment results would be provided to each student for formative feedback and to faculty for grading purposes. REFERENCES CITED 1) Stevens, F., F. Lawrenz, and L. Sharp, User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation: Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education, J. Frechtling, ed., National Science Foundation document #93-152, 1996. 2) Rogers, G.M., and J.K. Sando, Stepping Ahead: An Assessment Plan Development Guide, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, Indiana, 1996. Table 2 -- Evaluation Plan for Expert System Software Development Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research | Implementation | Evaluation | | Audience | Question | Strategy | Methods | Timeline | Dissemination | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are | How will the | How will you | When will | Who needs to | the | objectives be met?| know the | measurements| know the | project | Which project | objectives | be made? | results? How | objectives? | activities help | have been met?| | can you | What | you meet each | What measures | | convince them | questions | objective? | will be made? | | the objectives | are you | | On whom? | | were met? | trying to | | | | | answer? | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do results | Collect data | Statistically | Measurements| Statistical | from expert | using both beta | compare | will be | results will be| system | version of the | results -- | completed | used by human | software | software and | software is | during the | experts and | agree with | traditional | deemed | second year | programmers to | results from| interview methods.| reliable if | of the | improve | human | | correlation | project | software. | experts? | | coefficient | beta version| | | | exceeds 0.8 | of software | | | | for a sample | is written | | | | of 20 students| | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © B.M. Olds and R.L. Miller, 1997 Table 3 -- Evaluation Plan for Retention Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research | Implementation | Evaluation | | Audience | Question | Strategy | Methods | Timeline | Dissemination | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are | How will the | How will you | When will | Who needs to | the | objectives be met?| know the | measurements| know the | project | Which project | objectives | be made? | results? How | objectives? | activities help | have been met?| | can you | What | you meet each | What measures | | convince them | questions | objective? | will be made? | | the objectives | are you | | On whom? | | were met? | trying to | | | | | answer? | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do students | Develop and | Collect and | Collect data|Results will be | in the | implement | statistically | at the end |used by project | retention | interventions | compare | of each |directors to | project | designed to | enrollment | semester of |improve the | remain | improve retention | data for | the project.|project and | enrolled in | in targeted | students in | |convince | college at a| population. | the project | |administrators | higher rate | | with | |to | than their | | enrollment | |institutionalize| peers? | | data for their| |the project | | | peers? | |curriculum | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © B.M. Olds and R.L. Miller, 1997 Table 4 -- Evaluation Plan for Curriculum Development Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research | Implementation | Evaluation | | Audience | Question | Strategy | Methods | Timeline | Dissemination | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are | How will the | How will you | When will | Who needs to | the | objectives be met?| know the | measurements| know the | project | Which project | objectives | be made? | results? How | objectives? | activities help | have been met?| | can you | What | you meet each | What measures | | convince them | questions | objective? | will be made? | | the objectives | are you | | On whom? | | were met? | trying to | | | | | answer? | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are students| Develop and use | Faculty will | Faculty will| Results will be| more | the new subject | assess the | assess | provided to | technically | modules. | technical | technical | each student | competent | | competence | competence | after each | after | | (absolute | at the end | module | completing a| | scale) and | of each | (formative | series of | | growth of each| module and | feedback) and | subject | | student in | amount of | to faculty | modules? | | each subject | growth | (summative | | | area. Students| during the | assessment). | | | will self- | module. | | | | assess their | Students | | | | level of | will self- | | | | competence and| assess at | | | | amount of | the | | | | growth during | beginning | | | | each module. | and end of | | | | | each module.| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © B.M. Olds and R.L. Miller, 1997 _______________________________________________________________________________ EFFECTIVE PROCESSES TO GIVE ENGINEERING EDUCATORS EASY ACCESS TO QUALITY-REVIEWED ELECTRONIC COURSEWARE Chair: Alice M. Agogino Associate Dean of Engineering University of California at Berkeley Director, Synthesis Coalition Presenters: Pamela A. Eibeck Chair, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Northern Arizona University Brandon Muramatsu Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering University of California at Berkeley NEEDS Project Manager Judith L. Stern Instructional Multimedia Specialist University of California at Berkeley This workshop focused on the desirable characteristics of an electronic, multimedia database of engineering courseware to serve the needs of engineering educators for easily-accessible, quality-reviewed material of this nature. Much of the discussion centered around an existing system that appears most nearly to approach this goal at present -- the National Engineering Education Delivery System (NEEDS) database, developed in prototype form through the Synthesis Coalition. However, NSF expects that future databases of this nature will go well beyond the current NEEDS structure and probably become a part of the Digital Library Initiative (DLI) now under development with support from NSF, NASA, and DARPA. THE STATE OF THE ART Workshop chair Alice Agogino led off by describing the two main themes of the workshop: first, what means are available to access and disseminate engineering education courseware; and second, how can quality evaluation and peer review of engineering education instructional software be accomplished? The purpose of the workshop was to explore the desired features of a centralized, searchable, online repository of engineering education instructional software, and in that light to examine the utility of NEEDS as an example of such a clearinghouse while obtaining feedback from the workshop participants on the specific features of NEEDS and the quality-evaluation procedures currently being employed or envisioned for it. Brandon Muramatsu presented an overview of the current state of access to engineering education instructional software, focusing in particular on the emergence of the World Wide Web (WWW) as a publishing and information source. With the exponential growth in the number of users of the Internet and the WWW, this is the most promising medium. (More than 37 million people in the United States and Canada had access to the Web in 1996, and the number is growing daily.) Access options include the use of search engines and/or directly accessing the various Web pages of specific colleges of engineering, faculty members, and even individual courses. However, this approach is too random and time-consuming. (For example, searching the keywords "engineering AND multimedia" produces more than 100,000 "hits.") Far preferable would be online access to a centralized, searchable database of such software. There is a need for such a clearinghouse in engineering education. To gain objective input on that need, Muramatsu passed out a questionnaire, attached to this summary as Attachment A. Participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire and hand it in. Mr. Muramatsu described NEEDS (located at http://www.needs.org) as a "one-stop shop" based on the library metaphor, containing: (1) bibliographic records with downloadable courseware, and (2) multimedia elements including movies, images, and text. Searches can be conducted over both types of entry. NEEDS incorporates a multilevel courseware evaluation system with peer review and also a national competition called the Premier Award (sponsored by John Wiley and Sons). NEEDS allows a user to search, browse, display, and (in contrast to an online catalog system) download courseware. NEEDS can be used by anyone with a standard Web browser and Internet-connected computer. Courseware downloadable through NEEDS ranges from complete author packaged courseware to "samplers" of large courseware (i.e., courseware that usually comes on a full CD) to "ticklers" of commercially available courseware. In addition, multimedia elements -- in some cases the individual movies, images, and text that are used in a specific courseware package -- are available for download. NEEDS is a prototype model for a possible larger system. While the NEEDS database originally was developed to support dissemination of Synthesis-developed materials, it is expanding to include courseware developed by the other NSF-funded Engineering Education Coalitions. QUALITY REVIEW AND CRITERIA Quality review of instructional software ensures that a clearinghouse becomes a "living system." For example, the quality review of NEEDS courseware has two purposes. The first is to establish the credibility of NEEDS as a source of quality educational material. The second purpose is to gain enhanced recognition for the scholarly and creative effort of courseware developers. The quality review of courseware is divided into a peer review system based on the journal model and the Premier Award, a national award competition. The peer review is a gestalt review that considers the following major criteria: o Is the content error-free? o Are the target audience and educational goals consistent with the courseware content? o Can the courseware be used by an instructor other than the author? o Should the courseware be "endorsed" by NEEDS? The Premier Award is a competitive, annual award recently developed to recognize the development and use of outstanding engineering education instructional courseware. (The first Premier awardees will be announced in late 1997.) The term "outstanding courseware" recognizes not just the courseware itself but also the pedagogy, instructional objectives, and use in an instructional setting as defined by the author. The Premier Award involves a rigorous examination of courseware that explores student learning in depth. The three criteria used in Premier Award judging are: o Is the engineering content error-free? o Is the software well-designed and usable? o Is the instructional design such that students will learn from the courseware? (The most rigorous review is in this area.) To obtain input from the group on these criteria, the chair handed out a questionnaire that elicited their responses regarding the relative importance of aspects of the content, software design, and instructional design. This handout is given as Attachment B. Group discussion of these criteria led to a number of suggestions for ways to improve the criteria and the database. It was agreed that the database is only a skeleton. It might contain all the engineering courseware in the world, but without strong quality review the utility of the repository remains limited. The consensus was that there should be more focus on content -- i.e., include a question such as "Is the engineering technical content comprehensive and rigorous within the context of the defined objectives of the courseware?" The presenters agreed; they explained that the criteria for the Premier Award are weighted more heavily toward instructional design than content because the award is intended to encourage more "up-front" use of instructional design. With regard to Software Design criteria, suggested additions include: o The software clearly states what it can/will do. o The software performs as advertised, is error-free and reliable. o The software is user-friendly and internally consistent. o It lets the user make mistakes and provides appropriate feedback (e.g., it does not always just refer the learner to the relevant section of the material, but in some cases analyzes the error and provides the missing information). The criteria form itself (Attachment B) should specify up-front that, while the ultimate purpose of the criteria is to identify an award-winner, judges should nevertheless apply the questions from a functional perspective, as if the courseware were "for use." The form should define "courseware" up-front. A suggested definition is "a relatively complex package of material designed to convey knowledge content to the learner in an area of the curriculum." It was suggested that the minimum size of an item that could be classed as courseware is a "unit" covering at least two days of instruction. A wide range of learning materials should be available on the database, including tutorials, demonstrations, modules, and both large-scale and small items. NEEDS operators may eventually have to categorize the various types of courseware and apply different criteria depending on the size and purpose of the material. The wording of criteria should be unambiguous. For example, in question 3.1 regarding opportunities for student input (under Instructional Design, "Interactivity"), the form should specify whether this refers to the interactivity of the software itself or interactivity with the pedagogical content. The need for easily recognizable coding of reviews. One suggestion was a graphic of 1 to 4 "thumbs up," like a movie or restaurant review. Such a coding should not be too simplistic; it would have to be done from several standpoints (e.g., ease of use, learning potential, "integratability," etc.) Another suggestion to improve users' ability to quickly assess the quality of courseware is to provide space for viewable user feedback -- i.e., a forum, kiosk, or bulletin board. One idea is to develop a users' group, in addition to the standards group which already exists, to provide formal input directly to NEEDS developers. It is difficult to find qualified reviewers of courseware. This field is not yet at a point where reviewing such materials contributes toward promotion and tenure. One likely venue for making progress here is the Journal of Engineering Education. It was suggested that the reviews of top-rated materials for the Premier Award could be published in JEE, either as a "signed book review" or as an edited composite summary of the reviews on a given item of courseware. More broadly, it would be very useful if educational software/instructional technology could develop as a new subcomponent of the traditional engineering professional journals. It was noted that there are already a few fully electronic journals; these would seem to be likely candidates. NEEDS DATABASE FEATURES Based on the overview of NEEDS features provided by Muramatsu, using an online demonstration, a number of issues and suggestions were discussed regarding aspects of the database and the system itself. The issue of keeping a database such as NEEDS up to date over time is problematic. Engineering content changes, platform obsolescence, the emergence of new platforms, and the addition of new courseware all pose problems for NEEDS users. Allowing users to access the database and find the materials they are searching for and that are relevant is an on-going information retrieval problem. The NEEDS operators plan on continuously upgrading the search tools and adding filters to help users solve this problem. It was suggested that they might want to add a date window (filter) for archiving courseware. There is variability across engineering fields in terms of whether users most often look for new, exploratory courseware versus helpful incremental improvements to traditional courses. Perhaps this variability should be reflected more explicitly in the choice of materials for NEEDS. Based partly on the questionnaires that participants had filled out earlier, they were asked to discuss and identify features of an instructional software database that would be necessary or useful. Those identified include: o ease of access and use (including platform-independent) o a diversity of learning materials are available (tutorials, demonstrations, large-scale and modest programs) o clear and appealing o searchable by: - subject area - keywords -learning goals/objectives -operating system and software type o for each item: *-a (mandatory) description of learning goals/objectives *-classification of likely uses and users - memory requirements displayed (both using and downloading) o exemplars (good examples of various types of courseware) *o use/adoption history: - a requirement for the email address of those who download - a follow-up questionnaire to users (including the question, "Would you use this courseware again?") - this would also provide the developer with a means of tracking use and provide feedback for further refinement of the courseware o testing and evaluation performed -technical and outcomes assessment available o built-in feedback on best practices for development and use o updating over time (e.g., as platforms become obsolete or as links disappear) o a default copyright agreement. Most of the features identified already are present in NEEDS. Those that are not are identified with an asterisk. Control of intellectual property rights in NEEDS is an issue that has not yet been fully resolved. Authors of included courseware must sign an affidavit stating that they have not violated any copyright. However, NEEDS operators do not police the use of the freeware in terms of users modifying it and then selling it. They will inform the author if they happen to become aware of such unauthorized activity. Firmer policies are needed. It was suggested that a standard intellectual property statement be included on the package, stating that it is copyrighted and can be used but not commercialized. Several of the participants expressed a willingness to log on to NEEDS, explore the database, and provide feedback and/or be part of the peer review process. The general consensus was that NEEDS is a very useful concept to pursue as one approach to the development of electronic means for dissemination of engineering educational innovations. SUMMARY In her summary, workshop chair Dr. Agogino stressed that the existence of an online clearinghouse for instructional software is vital for the future of engineering education. She reiterated that it is the quality review of instructional software that makes a clearinghouse a "living system." Such an online repository must be easy to access and use, with a wide range of types of courseware available. It must be emphasized that the content of courseware -- not its technical presentation aspects -- is its most important feature. _______________________________________________________________________________ THE NSF ENGINEERING EDUCATION INNOVATORS' CONFERENCE April 7-8, 1997 Sheraton National Hotel, Arlington VA SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Sunday, April 6, 1997 Location --------------------- 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. Conference Registration Assembly Foyer Exhibits Set-up for Commonwealth Ballroom North lunch exhibitors Monday, April 7, 1997 --------------------- 7:00 am. - 8:00 am. Exhibits Set-up for lunch Commonwealth Ballroom North exhibitors 7:30 a.m. - 10:00 am. Conference Registration Assembly Foyer 8:00 am. - 9:00 am. Continental Breakfast Commonwealth Ballroom South Welcome Announcements: Dr. Robert Coleman, Associate Director, SUCCEED Opening Remarks: Dr. Marshall Lih, Director of the Division of Engineering Education and Centers, National Science Foundation Keynote Address: Engineering Education for the Twenty-First Century: Challenges and Opportunities presented by: Dr. Denice Denton, Dean, College of Engineering, University of Washington 9:15 am. - 12:00 p.m. Workshops (Except as noted, these workshops will be repeated, in the same locations after the lunch and exhibits) o Building Effective Industry/Academe Cavalier D Partnerships for Engineering Education Innovations Chair: Fred Beaufait Facilitators: Jack Hebrank, William Shelnutt o Developing Effective Multimedia Courseware Cavalier B & C (Note: workshop runs all day) Chair Beverly Woolf Facilitators: Sam Awonyi, Pamela Kurstedt, Matthew Ohland o Delivering Engineering Education via Concourse 1 Distance Learning Chair: Thomas Miller Facilitators: Joel Greenstein, Harold Kurstedt o Building Effective Dissemination East 2 Processes Chair: Karen Frair Facilitators: Jack Elzinga, Jack Mars o Institutionalizing Engineering Education Cavalier A Innovations Chair: William Swart Facilitators: Rodney Harrigan, Jack Lohmann o Evaluation of Engineering Education East 3 Projects Presenters: Ronald Miller, Barbara Olds o Effective Processes to Give Engineering Concourse 1 Educators Easy Access to Quality-Reviewed Electronic Courseware Presenters: Alice Agogino, Brandon Muramatsu 10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Morning break Assembly Foyer 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Lunch (Buffet) Commonwealth Ballroom South Interactive Exhibits Commonwealth Ballroom North and Poster Session 2:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Workshops o Building Effective Industry/Academe Cavalier D Partnerships for Engineering Education Innovations Chair: Fred Beaufait Facilitators: Jack Hebrank, William Shelnutt o Developing Effective Multimedia Courseware Cavalier B & C (Note: workshop runs all day) Chair: Beverly Woolf Facilitators: Sam Awonyi, Pamela Kurstedt, Matthew Ohland o Delivering Engineering Education via East 1 Distance Learning Chair: Thomas Miller Facilitators: Joel Greenstein, Harold Kurstedt o Building Effective Dissemination East 2 Processes Chair: Karen Frair Facilitators: Jack Elzinga, Jack Marr o Institutionalizing Engineering Education Cavalier A Innovations Chair: William Swart Facilitators: Rodney Harrigan, Jack Lohmann o Evaluation of Engineering Education East 3 Projects Presenters: Ronald MiIler, Barbara Olds o Effective Processes to Give Engineering Concourse 1 & 2 Educators Easy Access to Quality-Reviewed Electronic Courseware Presenters: Alice Agogino, Brandon Muramatsu 3:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Afternoon break Assembly Foyer 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Plenary Session Commonwealth Ballroom South Summary of Best Practices Workshops 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Set-up for Evening Commonwealth Ballroom North Exhibits 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Reception (Buffet) Commonwealth Ballroom North Interactive Exhibits Commonwealth Ballroom North and Poster Session Tuesday, April 8, 1997 8:00 am. - 9:00 am. TRP Plenary/Continental Cavalier B-D Breakfast 8:00 am.- 9:00 am. Continental Breakfast Commonwealth Ballroom South (all other participants) Conference participants should attend program-specific grantees meetings for Coalitions, CRCD, ERC, SCHOLARS and TRP. All program-specific meetings break for the lunch with Dr. Bordogna. If your program-specific meeting does not continue after lunch, please attend the general sessions described below. 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Program-Specific Meetings (See the following pages for Program-Specific Agendas) Combined Research-Curriculum Development Program/CRCD Commonwealth Ballroom North 1,2,3 Engineering Education Coalitions Program/Coalitions Concourse 1& 2 Engineering Research Centers Program/ERC Mezzanine 4 (ERG meeting will continue after lunch until 3:00 p.m.) Engineering Education Scholars Workshops/SCHOLARS Mezzanine 3 Technology Reinvestment Project: Manufacturing Education and Training Program/TRP Cavalier A-D (TRP meeting will continue after lunch until 4:15 p.m.) 10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Morning break Assembly Foyer 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Luncheon Commonwealth Ballroom South Introduction: John W Prados, Senior Education Associate, Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science Foundation Luncheon Keynote Address: Next Generation Engineering: Innovation Through Integration Presented by: Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Acting Deputy Director, National Science Foundation 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Briefing on the NSF Commonwealth Ballroom North Engineering Education Action Task Force Moderator: John Prados, Senior Education Associate, Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science Foundation 3:15 p.m. - 4:15 p.m. National Science Foundation Funding Opportunities Panel Moderator: Mary Poats, Program Manager Engineering Education and Centers Division, Directorate for Engineering NSF Panelists: Harry Hedges, Program Director, Office of Cross-Disciplinary Activities, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering; Janet Rutledge, Staff Associate, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources; Margaret Weeks, Program Director, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources; Paul Jennings, Program Director, Division of Graduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources; Donald Senich, Senior Advisor, Division of Design, Manufacture, and Industrial Innovation, Directorate for Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program-Specific Agendas I. Engineering Education Coalitions (EEC) Discussion Group 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Location: Concourse 1 & 2 Chair: John W Prados, Senior Education Associate Engineering Education and Centers Division National Science Foundation Theme: Implementing an Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering Education Reform Last September, a cross-directorate NSF "Action Agenda Task Group" was appointed and charged to: 1. Develop an investment portfolio for systemic engineering education reform that will ... integrate existing and future engineering education reform investments, and enable ... participation in the Human Capital Initiative (HCI). 2. Develop a multi-year plan of transition from our current investment in Engineering Education Coalitions (EEC) to a new set of systemic reform investments. Member of the Task Group will present tentative proposals now under consideration and will seek the advice of the participants regarding their potential usefulness in encouraging systemic engineering education reform. Note: An abbreviated version of this session will be repeated during the 2:00 p.m. session "Briefing on the NSF Engineering Education Action Task Force" presentation for the benefits of participants attending other Program-Specific Sessions that morning. II. Engineering Education Scholars Workshop Grantees (SCHOLARS) 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Location: Mezzanine 3 Chair: Sue Kemnitzer, Deputy Division Director and Program Director, SCHOLARS, Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science Foundation A. Recap of workshops to date by recounting the strengths of each B. Suggestions for improvement as indicated by evaluations and our own insights C. Cross-workshop evaluation: What is essential to a successful program? D. How to multiply participation and reduce costs E. New Directions. Ill. Engineering Research Centers (ERC) 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Mezzanine 4 The Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Program of the National Science Foundation (NSF) stands as a landmark in federal support for university research in partnership with industry. Established by the NSF Directorate for Engineering in 1985 in accordance with a model envisioned by the National Academy of Engineering, the ERC Program introduced a number of bold new features designed to strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. industries by bringing new approaches and goals to academic engineering research and education, and by forging vital new links between universities and industry. From their inception, the ERCs have reflected the new directions set forth in NSF's strategic plan, which include the development of intellectual capital, the integration of research and education, and the promotion of partnerships emphasizing shared investments, shared risks, and shared benefits. In many ways, the program has redefined the concept of an academic research center, serving as a model for other centers programs subsequently launched by the NSF, by other federal agencies, and even by other governments. Engineering Research Centers provide an integrated environment for academe and industry to focus on next-generation advances in complex engineered systems important for the Nation's future. Activity within ERCs lies at the interface between the discovery-driven culture of science and the innovation-driven culture of engineering, creating a synergy between science, engineering, and industrial practice. ERCs provide the intellectual foundation for industry to collaborate with faculty and students on resolving generic, long- range challenges producing the knowledge base for steady advances in technology and their speedy transition to the marketplace. ERCs integrate engineering education and research and expose students to industrial views in order to build competence in engineering practice and to produce engineering graduates with the depth and breadth of education needed for leadership throughout their careers. Each ERC is established as a three-way partnership involving academe, industry, and NSF (in some cases with the participation of state, local and/or other Federal government agencies). There are currently 25 ERCs, with total annual funding for each Center ranging from $3.3 to $12.5 million, with NSF's contribution for each Center ranging from $1.4 to $2.9 million per year. 9:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m. Welcome and Program Update Lynn Preston, Deputy Division Director, Engineering Education and Centers Division and ERC Program Coordinator, National Science Foundation Chair: L.S. Fletcher, Education Director, Offshore Technology Research Center, Texas A&M University 9:30 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Industrial Involvement in Curriculum Development Rao Tummala, Director, Center for Packaging Research, Georgia Institute of Technology Thylan Altan, Director, Center for Net Shape Manufacturing, Ohio State University Audrey Jones Childs, Assistant Director, Center for Biotechnology Process Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology William Costerton, Director, and Phil Butterfield, Center for Biofilm Engineering, Montana State University 10:15 a.m-10:30 a.m. Refreshment Break 10:30 a.m-11:00 a.m. Industrial Involvement in Curriculum Development (continued) 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Innovative Instructional Methodologies Patricia Shawakar, Chief Coordinator, Multimedia University Academy, Integrated Media Systems Center, University of Southern California Gary Rubloff, Director, Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland 12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Luncheon Keynote Speaker: Dr. Joseph Bordogna Acting Deputy Director, National Science Foundation 1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. The Employment Outcomes of ERC Graduates Linda Parker, Engineering Program Evaluation Director, Engineering Education and Centers Division 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Institutionalization and Dissemination of Educational Innovations Michael Corradini, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and Baine Alexander, Program Director, LEAD Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison Fennell Evans, Director, Center for Interfacial Engineering, University of Minnesota IV. Combined Research-Curriculum Development (CRCD) 1997 Grantees Conference 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Location: Commonwealth Ballroom North 1 Created in 1991, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Combined Research-Curriculum Development (CRCD) Program is a joint Directorate for Engineering (ENG) and Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) initiative which emphasizes the need to incorporate exciting research advances in important technology areas into the upper level undergraduate and graduate engineering curricula. This program has as a major objective stimulating faculty researchers to place renewed value on quality education and curriculum innovation in the context that education and research are of equal value and complementary parts of an integrated whole. There are currently 51 projects supported by the CRCD program and 18 new awards are being recommended as a result of the FY 96/97 CRCD competition. These projects have a duration of up to 3 years and may be supported by NSF at a total level of funding up to $400,000. Each project focuses on a particular topic which is of industrial and national importance in areas supported by ENG and CISE. These areas are those in which the development of curricula based on newly created fundamental engineering knowledge, will serve the changing needs of the industry and professional careers, enhance the education of future engineers, enable them to compete in the global environment and contribute to U.S. economic competitiveness and well being in a more direct and substantive way. Each CRCD project contains five major components: 1. Research--High quality, innovative, currently underway or recently completed, ready and appropriate to be integrated into curriculum development and classroom testing or application. 2. Curriculum Development--Upper level undergraduate and/or introductory graduate courses; relevant to improving students' preparation in the proposed technology area; relevant to practical world applications; includes innovative approaches and directions to curriculum development and educational delivery and interactive learning technologies; and places an emphasis on stimulating thinking an intellectual growth. 3. Participants--Consisting of faculty teams from engineering and other disciplines, undergraduate and graduate students, faculty from other institutions, individuals with expertise in education methodology and pedagogy, industrial partners and colleagues from professional societies and national laboratories. 4. Project Evaluation/Assessment/Dissemination/Implementation plans for the curriculum developed must be included in the program. 5. Cost Sharing--at least 25% is required from the academic institution(s) involved. Proceedings for the 1997 CRCD Grantees Conference are available on the World Wide Web at the Uniform Resource Locator: http.//www.eng.nsf.gov/eec/eeic.htm 8:30 am. - 9:00 a.m. Location: Commonwealth Ballroom North 1 CRCD Program Update Mary Posts, Program Manager, Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science Foundation 9:15 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. CRCD Program Sessions I - III 10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Refreshment Break 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Luncheon with Dr. Bordogna SESSION I Commonwealth Ballroom North 1 Multimedia Development Issues Session Chair: Dr. Craig Hartley, Program Director Civil and Mechanical Systems Division, National Science Foundation The Engine in Engineering-Development of Thermal/ Fluids Multimedia Applications Craig Eastwood, Allan Kirkpatrick, and Bryan Wilson, Colorado State University Development of Ceramic Matrix Composites Curricula P.K. Liaw and N. Allen Yu, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Multidisciplinary Education: Using Application Modules to Minimize Barriers for Educator Involvement Bennett Goldberg, Boston University Hyperlearning Meter: Toward On-Line Certification Peter Denning, Daniel Menasce, and Hal Le, George Mason University SESSION II Commonwealth Ballroom North 2 Multi-University Collaboration and Building Effective Partnerships Session Chair: Mary Poats, Program Manager, CRCD Analysis, Control and Optimization of Discrete Event Dynamic Systems C.G. Cassandras and Pirooz Vakili, Boston University; Weibo Gong, University of Massachusetts at Amherst A Power Engineering Triad: Flexible Control of Power Systems Mariesa L. Crow, University of Missouri-Rolla Experiences in Team-Teaching a Process Design Course Covering Steady-State Synthesis, Optimization, and Control at Penn, Princeton, and Lehigh Warren D. Seider, University of Pennsylvania; Christodoulos A. Floudas, Princeton University; William L. Luyben, Lehigh University Teaching integration Through Software Modules S. Raman, University of Oklahoma; D. Pratt, Oklahoma State University Development of the New York Center for Biomedical Engineering (CBE) Stephen C. Cowin, The City College and the Graduate School of the University of New York Curriculum in Particle Technology: Experiences with Building Partnerships R. N. Dave, R. Pfeffer, A.D. Rosato, IS. Fischer, and J. Luke, New Jersey Institute of Technology SESSION III Commonwealth Ballroom North 3 New Concepts in Engineering Education Session Chair: Win Aung, Senior Staff Associate, Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science Foundation Use of World Wide Web in Education: Dissemination and Evaluation Selim Unlu, Boston University Smart Sensor Technology: A Multidisciplinary Course Sequence-Integrating Solid State and VLSI Technology Gregory W Auner, Pepe Sly, and Ratna Naik, Wayne State University A Curriculum On Lasers in Manufacturing Elijah Kannatey-Asibu, Jr., University of Michigan Impact of CRCD Programs on Students, Curriculum, and Participating Faculty Precision Micromanufacturing Processes Applied to Miniaturization Technologies Craig Friedrich and Robert Warrington, Michigan Technological University V. Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) Manufacturing Education and Training 1997 Grantees Conference 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Cavalier B - D TRP PLENARY/Continental Breakfast Conference Coordinators: Marshall Lih, Division Director, and Joy Pauschke, Program Director, Engineering Education and Centers, Directorate for Engineering, National Science Foundation The multi-agency Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP) was initiated in 1992 to stimulate the transition to a growing, integrated, national industrial capability that can provide the most advanced, affordable military systems and the most competitive commercial products possible. Accordingly, one of three areas in which proposals were solicited in the fiscal year 1993 TRP competition was in Manufacturing Education and Training (MET). Fifty seven projects were funded to help improve the general state of U.S. competitiveness and productivity and provide a high-quality workforce for the 21st century. Emphases were on: the provision of new manufacturing engineering education and training opportunities, including those designed to equip defense and commercial technical professionals to work in the design environment of the future; dual-use engineering skills and the improvement of technical capabilities at all educational levels; and the use of experienced manufacturing experts and engineers in classroom settings. Presentations at the 1997 TRP/MET Grantees Conference include TRP/MET projects in the following areas: (1) Engineering Education in Manufacturing Across the Curriculum (2) Practice-Oriented Master's Degree Programs (3) Retraining the Manufacturing Workforce (4) Educational Traineeships for Defense Industry Engineers (5) Manufacturing Engineering Education Coalitions (6) Supplementary Education Awards to Ongoing Centers and Coalitions Devoted to Manufacturing (7) Individual/Group Innovations in Manufacturing Engineering Education (8) Manufacturing Experts in the Classroom Proceedings for the 1997 TRP/MET Grantees Conference are available on the World Wide Web at the Uniform Resource Locator: http/www.eng.nsf.gov/eec/eeic.htm Welcome: Marshall Lih, Division Director, Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science Foundation Program Update: Joy Pauschke, Program Director, Engineering Education and Centers Division, National Science Foundation TRP/JDUPO Status: John Jennings, Program Director, Joint Dual-Use Program Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Keynote Address - FAME: A Model Industry-Government-University Partnership - Institutionalizing the Success of SOCEME Andy R. Bazar, Executive Director, Foundation for the Advancement of Manufacturing Education (FAME), and J. Richard Williams, Dean, College of Engineering, California State University, Long Beach 9:15 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. SESSIONS 1A - 1D SESSION 1A Cavalier Room A Multi-Institution Partnerships for Manufacturing Education Session Chair: John Bennett, Jr., University of Connecticut Experiences in Organizing and Managing Engineering Education Coalitions Allen L. Soyster, Northeastern University Making a Partnership Work: Outcomes Assessment of a Multi-Task, Multi-Institutional Project Lueny Morell de Ramirez and Jose L. Zayas, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez; John Lamancusa, Pennsylvania State University; and Jens Jorgensen, University of Washington The Evolution of PRIDE: From NSF-Sponsored Project to a Regional Work Force Development Partnership Robert Bowman, Shipyard College; Carole Mablekos and Ronald Smith, Drexel University SESSION 1B Cavalier Room B Sustaining Manufacturing Education Innovations Session Chair: Daniel Brandt, Milwaukee School of Engineering New Models for Manufacturing Instructional Laboratories Leon F. McGinnis, Georgia Institute of Technology Enhancement of a Manufacturing Systems Engineering Master's Curriculum Through Manufacturing Expert Support Robert J. Graves, Jorge Haddock, Sunderesh S. Heragu, Charles J. Malmborg, and Caroline Selwood, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute NEMJET: National Excellence in Materials Joining Education and Training John C. Lippold, The Ohio State University SESSION 1C Cavalier Room C Electronic Courseware I Session Chair: Golgen Bengu, New Jersey Institute of Technology WEB-ducation: Extending a Teacher's Communication and Mediation Capabilities through the Internet Clarissa L. Hidalgo and John R. Williams, Massachusetts Institute of Technology A Multimedia Module on Statistics in Manufacturing Quality Control Steven R. Lerman and Justin N. Lapierre, Massachusetts Institute of Technology SESSION 1D Cavalier Room D Electronic Courseware II Session Chair: Donald Millard, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute The UNM Manufacturing Engineering Program: Manufacturing Enterprise Simulator John E. Wood, University of New Mexico; Heidi Hahn and P. Kunsberg, Los Alamos National Laboratory; H. Ravinder and J.N. Beer, University of New Mexico Simulation and Multimedia-Based Learning Tools for Manufacturing Bala Ram, North Carolina A&T State University and Rajiv Girdhar, General Electric Corporation 10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Refreshment Break 10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. SESSIONS 2A - 2D SESSION 2A Cavalier Room A Case Study: Transforming Undergraduate Engineering Education Session Chair: William Swart, New Jersey Institute of Technology An Overview of the Change Process from a Dean's Perspective William Swart, New Jersey Institute of Technology Changing the Curriculum: From Freshman to Senior Year Geraldine Milano, Norbert Elliot, Iftekhar Hasan, and Sandy Dorman, New Jersey Institute of Technology Development and Use of Synchronous and Asynchronous Technology-Based Learning Aids for Undergraduate Engineering Education Gale Spak, Golgen Bengu, and Paul Ranky, New Jersey Institute of Technology Integration of Industry in Undergraduate Engineering Education Steve Tricamo, Gregg Mass, and William Swart, New Jersey Institute of Technology Assessing, Evaluating, and Continuously Improving the System Jack MacGourty, Catherine DiFrancesco, Norbert Elliot, and William Swart, New Jersey Institute of Technology SESSION 2B Cavalier Room B Working Effectively with Industry Session Chair: Mohan Trivedi, University of California, San Diego NAPEM - National Alliance for Photonics Education in Manufacturing: Partnering with Industry to Re-engineer Photonics Education Programs to Enhance Manufacturing Processes Susan Anderson and Janice Gaines, SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering New Practical MS/MSE Degree Program with Concentration in Optics and Photonics Technology John Dimmock, Anees Ahmad, and Stephen Kowel, The University of Alabama in Huntsville The Manufacturing Engineering Internship Program at Polytechnic University Charles J. Bartlett, Charles W. Hoover, Jr., and Linda A. True, Polytechnic University The UNM Manufacturing Engineering Program: Experts, Near And Far, in the Classroom, Near and Far John E. Wood, University of New Mexico Industry-University Partnerships as a Vehicle for Electromagnetics Research Applications, Northeastern University Charles A. DiMarzio and Paula G. Leventman, Northeastern University SESSION 2C Cavalier Room C Electronic Courseware III Session Chair: Sundar Krishnamurty University of Massachusetts, Amherst Intelligent Tutors for Manufacturing Topics Beverly Park Woolf, Corrado Poli, and Ian Grosse, University of Massachusetts, Amherst The Success of Multimedia Courseware in the Manufacturing Engineering Education Partnership (MEEP) Program Michelle Griffith, Sandia National Laboratories; John Lamancusa and Renate Engel, Pennsylvania State University; Jens E. Jorgensen, University of Washington; Jorge Velez, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez OPTLINE: Manufacturing Process Line Optimization Peter L. Jackson, Cornell University SESSION 2D Cavalier Room D Manufacturing Curriculum and Administration I Session Chair: Mark Henderson, Arizona State University Manufacturing and integrated Design in First Year Engineering Courses John C. Bennett, Jr., University of Connecticut Hands-on Design Experiences for Undergraduate Engineering Students Phillip A. Farrington, Paul J. Componation, and Bernard J. Schroer, The University of Alabama in Huntsville Redesigning the Mechanical Engineering Technology Curriculum for Hands-on Manufacturing Experience with Local Institutions Edward L. Bernstein, Alan R. Terrill, and Arthur J. Bond, Alabama A&M University Work Force Retraining in Manufacturing Science and Engineering of Reliable Electronics Abhijit Dasgupta and Michael Pecht, University of Maryland Lessons Learned: Organizational Cultures as Obstacles to Boundary Crossing in Multi-Institutional Product Realization Projects Kevin O'Connor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute 12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. Luncheon Commonwealth Ballroom South 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. SESSIONS 3A - 3D SESSION 3A Cavalier Room A Manufacturing Curriculum and Administration II Session Chair: Lueny Morell de Ramirez, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Multi-institutional Partnerships: Avoiding the Pitfalls Fred Beaufait, Greenfield Coalition, Wayne State University Modeling a World Class Manufacturing Curriculum: Results of An International Workshop M. Henderson, JE. Bailey, D. Rollier, D. Shunk, and F. Lawrence, Arizona State University Gains Made in the Redesign of the Manufacturing Engineering Curriculum Natalie Mello Acuna, Richard D. Sisson, Jr., and Kevin O'Connor Worcester Polytechnic Institute SESSION 3B Cavalier Room B Workforce Education and Training Session Chair: John Wood, University of New Mexico The Shipyard College: Building a Consortium to Deliver Workforce Education and Training Raymond Yannuzzi, Delaware County Community College; Robert Bowman, Shipyard College; Bradshaw Kinsey, Community College of Philadelphia; Edward McDonnell, Camden County Community College The Role of the Community College in Regional Workforce Development Maria E. Hamilton, Northwest Pennsylvania Technical Institute Project RETRAIN: Lessons Learned Vernon Roan, University of Florida SESSION 3C Cavalier Room C Electronic Courseware IV Session Chair: Bala Barn, North Carolina A&T State University Computer Aided Cognitive Tools for Teaching and Implementing Clean Manufacturing G. Bengu, D. Watts, N. Elliott, J. Lipuma, A. Bhaumik, Y. Mallikarjun, and S. Tolety, New Jersey Institute of Technology Development of a Teaching Laboratory for Molding Polymer Composites K. Jayaraman, Sunil K. Gupte, and Martin Hawley, Michigan State University; Roy McCullough, University of Delaware SESSION 3D Cavalier Room D Distance Learning/Online Education Programs Panel Moderator: A Darryl Davis, East Carolina University Panel Discussion: "The Pioneer 9 and Friend" - the first Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. Graduates from East Carolina University's Online Global Classroom Panel Participants: J. Barry DuVall, and Elmer C. Poe, East Carolina University; Hoyt Heinmuller, Rick Bull, Marsha Blann, Paul Harris, James Painter, and James Hines, Black & Decker Inc. 3:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. Refreshment Break 3:15 p.m. - 4:15 p.m. SESSIONS 4A - 4D SESSION 4A Cavalier Room A Master's Degree Programs Session Chair: Charles Malmborg, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute UCSD Program in Advanced Manufacturing: Interdisciplinary Education and Industry Partnership Mohan Trivedi, University of California, San Diego Executive MS in Manufacturing: A New Program for Practicing Engineers Michael Gevelber, Boston University Integrated Manufacturing Engineering (IME) Program at UCLA: A New Master of Engineering Degree Program H. Thomas Hahn, University of California, Los Angeles SESSION 4B Cavalier Room B Manufacturing Curriculum and Laboratories Session Chair: Leon McGinnis, Georgia Institute of Technology Rapid Prototyping in Manufacturing Education: A Research-Based Modular Curriculum Daniel Brandt, Milwaukee School of Engineering Manufacturing and Electronic Packaging - Dual-Use Approach in Education John A. Fib, C. Sahay, and K. Srihari, State University of New York at Binghamton Development of a Multimedia Course Module in Silicon Processing Kalyan Kumar Das, Tuskegee University SESSION 4C Cavalier Room C Electronic Courseware V Session Chair: John C. Bennett, Jr., University of Connecticut Developing Multimedia Courseware Fred Beaufait, Greenfield Coalition, Wayne State University Interactive Learning Modules for Design and Manufacturing Education Arthur Sanderson, Donald Millard, Thomas Krawczyk, Susan Anderson, Tarn Rosenberger, and William Jennings, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute SESSION 4D Cavalier Room D Electronic Courseware VI Session Chair: Carole Mablekos, Drexel University EDLIB: An Electronic Design Library Sundar Krishnamurty and Ian Grosse, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Leveraging Computer Technology for Training in the Liquid Molding Area of Polymer Composites Eman EI-Sheihk, Chris Penney, Rong Liu, Ahmed Kamel, and Jon Stricklen, Michigan State University; Roy McCullough, University of Delaware _______________________________________________________________________________ 1997 ENGINEERING EDUCATION INNOVATORS' CONFERENCE LIST OF EXHIBITORS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | P.I./ Co-Pis/ | NSF | Institution | | | Exhibitor(s) | Program | /Center | Exhibit | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |John Collura | CRCD |University of |Integrating Intelligent | |David E. Kaufman | |Massachusetts,|Transportation Systems Research | | | |Amherst |Project Results into | | | | |Engineering Curricula | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Rajesh N. Dave | CRCD |New Jersey |Multimedia Laboratory | | | |Institute of |Instructional Material | | | |Technology |Development for a Curriculum | | | | |in Particle | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |John F. Federici | CRCD |New Jersey |A Multidisciplinary Optical | |A.M. Johnson | |Institute of |Science and Engineering CRCD | |R. Barat | |Technology |Program | |H. Grebel | | | | |T. Chang | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Elijah | CRCD |University of |Lasers in Manufacturing | |Kannatey-Asibu, | |Michigan, | | |Jr. | |Ann Arbor | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Peter Liaw | CRCD |University of |Development of Ceramic Matrix | | | |Tennessee, |Composite Curricula | | | |Knoxville | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Vittal S. Rao | CRCD |University of |Development of Multidisciplinary | |Leslie R. Koval | |Missouri, |Curriculum in Smart Structures | | | |Rolla | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Robert Warrington | CRCD |Michigan |Precision Micromanufacturing | |Craig Friedrich | |Technological |Processes Applied to | |Michael Vasile | |University |Miniaturization Technologies | |Jun-Ing Ker | |Louisiana Tech| | |Roy Schubert | |University | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Alice M. Agogino | EEC |University of |Institutionalization, Evaluation | |Roland Jenison | |California, |and Dissemination of Educational | |Brandon Muramatsu | |Berkeley |Innovations of the Synthesis | |Sheri Sheppard | | |Coalition | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Fred Beaufait | EEC |Wayne State |Greenfield Coalition: | | | |University |Mechanics II; Psychology for | | | | |Engineers Taught Online; | | | | |Electroscience; Thermophysics; | | | | |Mechanophysics | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Fred Beaufait | EEC |Wayne State |Greenfield Coalition: | |Philip Go | |University |Manufacturing Processes and | | | | |Planning | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Fred Beaufait | EEC |Wayne State |Greenfield Coalition: | |Jonathan Weaver | |University |Machining Processes | |Elijah | | | | |Kannetey-Asibu,Jr.| | | | |Paul Eagle | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |Robert Coleman | EEC |University of |SUCCEED Coalition | | | |North Carolina| | | | |Charlotte | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Carlos Corleto | EEC |Texas A&M |The Foundation Coalition: First | | | |University, |and Second Year Integrated | | | |Kingsville |Engineering Curriculums at Texas | | | | |A&M University, Kingsville | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Joseph M. Cychosz | EEC |Purdue |Video Conference for Project | | | |University |Design Courses | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Don Edwards | EEC |Texas Woman's |The Foundation Coalition | | | |University | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |D. Jack Elzinga | EEC |University of |Curricular Innovation and Renewal| |Michael S. Leonard| |Florida; | | | | |Clemson | | | | |University | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Louis Everett | EEC |Texas A&M |The Foundation Coalition: | | | |University |Integrated Sophomore Year at | | | | |Texas A&M University | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Karen Frair | EEC |University of |The Foundation Coalition | | | |Alabama; | | | | |Arizona State | | | | |University; | | | | |Maricopa | | | | |Community | | | | |College | | | | |District; | | | | |Rose-Hulman | | | | |Institute of | | | | |Technology; | | | | |Texas A&M | | | | |University; | | | | |Texas A&M | | | | |University, | | | | |Kingsville; | | | | |Texas Woman's | | | | |University | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Jeff Froyd | EEC |Rose-Hulman |Integrated First-Year Curriculum | | | |Institute of |for Science, Engineering, and | | | |Technology |Mathematics (IFYCSEM); Rose- | | | | |Hulman/Foundation-Coalition | | | | |Sophomore Engineering | | | | |Curriculum (SEC) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Kurt Gramoll | EEC |Georgia |Involving K-12 Students in | | | |Institute of |Aerospace Engineering: The JPL | | | |Technology |Mars Global Surveyor CD-ROM | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Andrea Greene | EEC |Maricopa |Foundation Coalition Integrated | | | |Community |Engineering Program | | | |College | | | | |District | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Sam Hilborn | EEC |University of |Gateway: Technology Enhanced | |HuiQin Jin | |South Carolina|Cooperative Team Learning | |Miguel Barrientos | |Columbia | | |Tracey Scott | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Roxanne Jacoby | EEC |Cooper Union |Gateway: The GLOBETECH Simulation| | | | |Project | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Gary L. Kinzel | EEC |Ohio State |Gateway: Multi-University | |Vijay Kumar | |University; |Concurrent Engineering Project | |Chih-Shing Wei | |University of | | |Golgen Bengu | |Pennsylvania; | | |Jack Zhou | |Cooper Union; | | | | |New Jersey | | | | |Institute of | | | | |Technology; | | | | |Drexel | | | | |University | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Jed Lyons | EEC |University of |The Gateway Coalition Materials | |Philip Perdikaris | |South |Project: Modules for Materials | |Surya Kalidindi | |Carolina; |Science and Engineering Courses | |Alan Lawley | |Case Western | | |Gary Ruff | |Reserve | | |John DiNardo | |University; | | |Linda Shadler | |Drexel | | |John Lanutti | |University; | | |Charles McMahon | |Ohio State | | | | |University; | | | | |University of | | | | |Pennsylvania | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Gregory Miller | EEC |University of |ECSEL Coalition: "Fusing | |Stephen Cooper | |Washington, |Analysis, Instruction and | | | |Seattle |Collaboration" | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Raj Mutharasan | EEC |Drexel |Gateway: Manufacturing: A | |Charles B. | |University |Contextual Introduction to | |Weinberger | | |Transport Phenomena | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Don Richards | EEC |Rose-Hulman |The Foundation Coalition: | | | |Institute of |Rose-Hulman Institute of | | | |Technology |Technology | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |James Richardson | EEC |University of |Foundation Coalition: University | |Joey Parker | |Alabama |of Alabama | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Ronald Roedel | EEC |Arizona State |Foundation Coalition: Arizona | | | |University |State University | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Dhushy | EEC |Pennsylvania |ECSEL's Programs of Collaboration| |Sathianathan | |State |with the K-14 Community | | | |University; | | | | |Howard | | | | |University; | | | | |University of | | | | |Maryland; | | | | |University of | | | | |Washington; | | | | |Community | | | | |College of | | | | |New York; | | | | |Massachusetts | | | | |Institute of | | | | |Technology | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |J. William | EEC |University of |SUCCEED Coalition | |Shelnutt | |North Carolina| | | | |Charlotte | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |M. Lucius Walker, | EEC |Howard |ECSEL Coalition Design | |Jr. | |University; |Competitions | |Gretchen Kalonji | |University of | | |Thomas Regan | |Washington, | | |Bruce Schimming | |Seattle; | | | | |University of | | | | |Maryland; | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Tony Webster | EEC |Columbia |Multimodal Technologies for | |John Morris | |University; |Interschool Collaboration | |Bill Spillers | |Drexel | | |Jane Murphy | |University; | | | | |New Jersey | | | | |Institute of | | | | |Technology; | | | | |Ohio State | | | | |University | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Siegfried M. | EEC |Virginia Tech |SUCCEED: Multimedia in Statics | |Holzer | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Dale W. Kirmse | EEC |University of |SUCCEED: Computer-Aided Process | |Oscar D. Crisalle | |Florida, |Improvement Laboratory | |Elmer C. Hansen | |Gainesville | | |G. Geoffory Vining| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |David F. Ollis | EEC |North Carolina|SUCCEED: Product and Process | | | |State |Engineering | | | |University | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |Mark Austin | ERC |University of |Web-based Engineering Design | | | |Maryland, |Projects | | | |College Park | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |James Bean | ERC |University of |ERC in Reconfigurable Machining | | | |Michigan, |Systems | | | |Ann Arbor | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |J.W. Costerton | ERC |Montana State |Integration of Education, | |Phil Stewart | |University, |Research and Industry at the | |Jeralyn Brodowy | |Bozeman |Center for Biofilm Engineering | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |John R. Hauser | ERC |North Carolina|Center for Advanced Electronic | |Penny LeBourgeois | |State |Materials Processing's | | | |University |Undergraduate Educational | | | | |Outreach | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Yoram Koren | ERC |University of |Engineering Research Center for | | | |Michigan |Reconfigurable Machining Systems | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Demetri Psaltis | ERC |California |CNS 246 Multicellular Recording | |Pietro Perona | |Institute of | | |Richard A. | |Technology | | |Andersen | | | | |John S. Pezaris | | | | |Maneesh Sahani | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Demetri Psaltis | ERC |California |Sensory Information Processing | |Pietro Perona | |Institute of |Laboratory | |Mario Munich | |Technology | | |George | | | | |Barbastathis | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Gary W. Rubloff | ERC |University of |Simulator-Based Learning Tools | | | |Maryland, |for Manufacturing Education and | | | |College Park |Training for Microelectronics | | | | |Processing | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Daniel P. | ERC |Carnegie |Learning as Problem Solving: | |Siewiorek | |Mellon |Integrating Research and | |Mark Kryder | |University |Education | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Patrick S. Stayton| ERC |University of |UWEB Engineering Research Center | | | |Washington, |Educational Program | | | |Seattle | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |A. Galip Ulsoy | ERC |University of |ERC for Reconfigurable Machining | | | |Michigan, |Systems | | | |Ann Arbor | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Pirooz Vakili | ERC |Boston |Analysis, Control and | | | |University |Optimization of Discrete Event | | | | |Dynamic Systems | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Olaf T. von Ramm | ERC |Duke |Training Engineers for Tomorrow's| | | |University |Workplace | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Peter K. Wiesner | IEEE* |IEEE |Best Practices Forum: Skills and | | | |Educational |Knowledge Assessment in Industry | | | |Activities | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Michael Corradini | LEADS* |University of |Evaluation and | |Baine Alexander | |Wisconsin, |Institutionalization of | |Kathy Luker | |Madison |Engineering Education Innovations| | | | |at UW-Madison | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |John Noble | NSF |National |NSF/ENG Web Tour | | | |Science | | | | |Foundation | | | | |Engineering | | | | |Directorate | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |John C. Bennett, | TRP |University of |First Year Engineering Integrated| |Jr. | |Connecticut |Design Projects | | | |Engineering | | | | |Academy of | | | | |Southern New | | | | |England | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Daniel A. Brandt | TRP |Milwaukee |Rapid Prototyping in | |Cynthia Barnicki | |School of |Manufacturing Education: | |Darius Daruwala | |Engineering |Research-based Modular Curriculum| |Richard Furlick | | | | |Vito Gervasi | | | | |Robert Kern | | | | |A. James Mallmann | | | | |Matthew Panhans | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Abhijit Dasgupta | TRP |University of |Retraining the Manufacturing | |Michael Pecht | |Maryland, |Workforce in Electronics | | | |College Park |Manufacturing | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |Charles S. Elliott| TRP |Arizona State |Joint Arizona Center for | | | |University |Manufacturing Education and | | | | |Training (JACMET) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Martin C. Hawley | TRP |Michigan State|Manufacturing Education and | |Roy L. McCullough | |University; |Training Program in Composite | |Krishnamurthy | |University of |Materials for DoD and Durable | | |Jayaraman | |Delaware |Goods Industries | |Jon Sticklen | | | | |Michael Bogdan | | | | |Roderic Don | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Sundar | TRP |University of |EDLIB - An Electronic Design | |Krishnamurthy | |Massachusetts,|Library | |Ian Grosse | |Amherst; | | | | |Engineering | | | | |Academy of | | | | |Southern New | | | | |England | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |John S. Lamancusa | TRP |Pennsylvania |Manufacturing Engineering | |Jens E. Jorgensen | |State |Education Partnership (MEEP) | |Jose L. | |University; | | |Zayas-Castro | |University of | | |Michelle Griffith | |Washington; | | |William Dawes | |University of | | | | |Puerto Rico, | | | | |Mayaguez; | | | | |Sandia | | | | |National | | | | |Laboratories | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Charles J.Malmborg| TRP |Rensselaer |Integrative, Experientially | |Robert J. Graves | |Polytechnic |Focused Instruction in | |Jorge Haddock | |Institute |Manufacturing Systems Engineering| |Sunderesh Heragu | | |through Manufacturing Expert | | | | |Support | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Prem K. Saint | TRP |California |Project INTENT: Integrated | |Hasan Sehitoglu | |State |Environmental Training for | | | |University, |Displaced Defense Industry | | | |Fullerton |Engineers During a Rapidly | | | | |Changing Economy in Southern | | | | |California | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Arthur C. | TRP |Rensselaer |Interactive Learning Modules for | |Sanderson | |Polytechnic |Manufacturing Education and | |F. Dicesare | |Institute |Training | |R.J. Graves | | | | |W.C. Jennings | | | | |Don L. Millard | | | | |S. Sanderson | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Ronald W. Smith | TRP |Drexel |Partnership for Retraining and | |Eli Fromm | |University |Innovation in Delivering | |Nihat Bilgutay | | |Education (PRIDE) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |M.J. Soileau | TRP |University of |National Alliance for Photonics | |Susan Anderson | |Central |Education in Manufacturing | | | |Florida | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Chris Thompson | TRP |Georgia |Multimedia In Manufacturing | | | |Institute of |Education | | | |Technology | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |M. Lucius Walker, | TRP |Howard |ECSEL Design for Manufacturing | |Jr. | |University; |Education Program | |Benjamin Liaw | |City College | | | | |of New York | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |J.Richard Williams| TRP |California |Southern California Coalition for| |Andy R. Bazar, | |State |Education in Manufacturing | |et al. | |University, |Engineering (SCCEME) | | | |Long Beach | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |J.Richard Williams| TRP |California |Institutionalizing the Success of| |Andy R. Bazar, | |State |SCCEME: Foundation for the | |et al. | |University, |Advancement of Manufacturing | | | |Long Beach |Education (FAME) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |John Wolcott | TRP |Texas Research|Development of Manufacturing | |Edwin LeMaster | |and Technology|Engineering Curriculum | |Casey Fox | |Foundation/ | | |Subhash Bose | |University of | | | | |Texas | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |J.E. Wood | TRP |University of |The UNM Manufacturing Engineering| |H. Ravinder | |New Mexico; |Program: Manufacturing | |J.N. Beer | |Los Alamos |Enterprise Simulator | |H.A. Hahn | |National | | |P. Kunsberg | |Laboratory | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Beverly Park Woolf| TRP |Engineering |Intelligent Multimedia Tutors for| |Corrado Poli | |Academy of |Manufacturing Education | |Ian Grosse | |Southern New |Engineering Academy of Southern | | | |England |New England | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Program not funded by NSF. _______________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Sabah R. Abro Martha Shumate Absher Math Program Leader Director of Outreach Focus:Hope Duke University Center for Advanced Technologies Box 90295 1400 Oakman Boulevard B233 LSRC Detroit, MI 48238 Durham, NC 27708-0295 Natalie Mello Acuna Joel Adler Program Manager University of Pennsylvania Worcester Polytechnic 2205 S. 33rd Street Institute Philadelphia, PA 19104-6315 100 Institute Road Worcester, MA 01609 Alice M. Agogino Nizar Al-Holou Professor University of Detroit, University of California, Mercy Berkeley Detroit, MI 48219-0900 Synthesis Coalition Office 3112 Etcheverry Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1750 Baine B. Alexander Taylan Altan Assoc. Director, LEAD Center Director University of Ohio State University Wisconsin-Madison 339 Baker LEAD Center 1971 Neil Avenue 1402 University Avenue Columbus, OH 43210 Madison, WI 53706 James Amara Susan A. Ambrose Div. Coordinator Sci. & Tech. Director Minuteman Science Carnegie Mellon University & Technical High School 5000 Forbes Avenue 758 Marrett Road Warner Hall 425 Lexington, MA 02173 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Jane C. Ammons Cristina Amon Assoc. Professor Professor Georgia Institute Carnegie Mellon University of Technology Mechanical Engineering Atlanta, GA 30332-0205 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Dimitris Anastassiou Richard A. Andersen Professor Professor Columbia University California Institute New York, NY 10027 of Technology Mail Code 216-76 Pasadena, CA 91125 Timothy J. Anderson Susan A. Anderson Professor & Chair Program Manager University of Florida SPIE Dept. of Chemical Engineering 1000 20th Street Gainesville, FL 32611 Bellingham, WA 98225 Ronald S. Artigue Gregory W. Auner Professor Assoc. Professor Rose-Hulman Institute Wayne State University of Technology 5050 Anthony Wayne Drive 5500 Wabash Avenue Detroit, MI 48202 Terre Haute, IN 47803 Win Aung Mark Austin Senior Staff Associate Assoc. Professor National Science Foundation University of Maryland ENG/EEC Inst. for Systems Research 4201 Wilson Boulevard 2209 A.V. Williams Building Suite 585 College Park, MD 20742 Arlington, VA 22230 Sam Awoniyi Charles J. Bartlett Florida State University Industry Professor Industrial Engr. Dept. Polytechnic University 2525 Pottsdamer St. 36 Saw Mill River Road Tallahassee, FL 32310 Hawthorne, NY 10532 Andy R. Bazar James Carl Bean Executive Director Professor Fndn. for Advancement University of Michigan Room 406, Vivian Engr. CenteR 1205 Beal Street CSULB Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2117 1250 Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90840-8306 Fred Beaufait Joel N. Beer Director Professor Focus:Hope University of New Mexico Greenfield Coalition Mechanical Engineering Bldg. 1400 Oakman Room 206 Detroit, MI 48238-2881 Albuquerque, NM 87131 Golgen Bengu John C. Bennett, Jr. New Jersey Institute Dept. of Mechanical Engineering of Technology University of Connecticut Newark, NJ 07102 191 Auditorium Road Storrs, CT 06269-3139 Frederick C. Berry Frederick Betz Assoc. Professor National Science Foundation Rose-Hulman Institute Suite 585 of Technology 4201 Wilson Boulevard 5500 Wabash Arlington, VA 22230 Terre Haute, IN 47803 Anirban Bhamik Thomas R. Blake New Jersey Institute University of Massachusetts of Technology Amherst, MA 01003 Dept. of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Newark, NJ 07450 Marsha Blann Michael P. Bogdan Quality Technician Tech. Transfer Coordinator Black & Decker Michigan State University 28712 Glebe Road 2112 Engineering Building Easton, MD 21601 Composite Materials & Structures Center East Lansing, MI 48824 Arthur J. Bond Robert W. Borland Dean Project Manager Alabama A&M University Drexel University P.O. Box 1148 Gateway Coalition Normal, AL 35762 228 Main 32nd & Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, PA 19104 Subhash Bose Robert Bowman Assoc. Professor Shipyard College University of Texas, Philadelphia Naval Business Center Pan American Building 79, Second Floor 1201 W. University Drive East 4th Street & Delaware Ave. Edinburg, TX 78539-2999 Philadelphia, PA 19112 Stephen P. Boyd Daniel A. Brandt Professor Professor & Director Stanford University Milwaukee School Durand 111 of Engineering Stanford, CA 94305-9510 1025 N. Broadway Milwaukee, WI 53132 Thomas E. Bray Jeralyn M. Brodowy Dean, Applied Research Education Coordinator Milwaukee School Montana State University of Engineering Center for Biofilm 1025 N. Broadway Engineering Milwaukee, WI 53202-3109 P.O. Box 173980 366 EPS Building Bozeman, MT 59717-3980 Chris W. Brueckner Ric Bull Asst. Director Financial Controller East Carolina University Black & Decker 105 Flannagan 28712 Glebe Road Greenville, NC 27858 Easton, MD 21601 Michael H. Buonocore Maria K. Burka University of California, Chemical & Transport Systems Div. Davis Medical Center Suite 525 Radiology National Science Foundation 2421 45th Street 4201 Wilson Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95831 Arlington, VA 22230 William S. Butcher Phillip W. Butterfield Sr. Engineering Advisor Research Assistant National Science Foundation Montana State University 4201 Wilson Boulevard 366 EPS Building Suite 585 Bozeman, MT 59717 Arlington, VA 22230 Bradley D. Carter Cetin Cetinkaya Professor Wolfram Research Mississippi State University 100 Trade Center Dr. P.O. Box 9627 Urbana, IL 61801 Mississippi State, MS 39762 Audrey Jones Childs Robert J. Coleman Asst. Director Assoc. Director Biotechnology Process Engr. Center University North Carolina, Room 20A-207 Charlotte Mass. Institute of Technology Dept. of Electrical Engineering 77 Massachusetts Avenue Smith Hall Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 Charlotte, NC 28223 John Collura Paul J. Componation University of Massachusetts, Asst. Professor Amherst University of Alabama, Dept. of Civil Engineering Huntsville 21C Marston Hall Huntsville, AL 35899 Amherst, MA 01003 Stephen C. Cooper David Cordes Research Asst. Assoc. Professor University of Washington University of Alabama Box 3527000 Box 870290 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 Dept. of Computer Science Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Carlos R. Corleto Michael Corradini Asst. Professor Associate Dean Texas A&M University, College of Engineering Kingsville Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Box 191 2630 Engineering Hall Kingsville, TX 78363 1415 Engineering Drive Madison, WI 53706 J. William Costerton Gerard J. Cote Director Texas A&M University Montana State University Bioengineering Program Bozeman, MT 59717 233 Zachry Engr. Bldg. College Station, TX 77843-3120 Stephen Cowin Mariesa L. Crow City College of New York Associate Professor New York, NY 10024 University of Missouri-Rolla 1870 Miner Circle G-10A Electrical Engineering Rolla, MO 65409-0040 Peter T. Cummings Al Cunningham Dist. Professor Montana State University University of Tennessee P.O. Box 173980 419 Dougherty Engineering 366 EPS Building Chemical Engr. Department Bozeman, MT 59717-3980 Knoxville, TN 37996-2200 Joseph Cychosz Zeev Dagan Purdue University Assoc. Dean Center for Collaborative City College of New York Manufacturing Convent Avenue @ 138th Street Potter Engineering Center School of Engineering West Lafayette, IN 47907-1291 New York, NY 10025 Mary Dalheim Kalyan Kumar Das ASEE PRISM Magazine Asst. Professor 1818 N Street, NW Tuskegee University Suite 600 Dept. of Electrical Engineering Washington, DC 20036 Tuskegee, AL 36088 Abhijit Dasgupta Rajesh N. Dave Professor Assoc. Professor University of Maryland New Jersey Institute CALCE/EPRC of Technology College Park, MD 20742 Mechanical Engineering Dept. Newark, NJ 07102-1982 A. Darryl Davis Daniel C. Davis Dean Assoc. Dean East Carolina University New Jersey Institute Greenville, NC 27858 of Technology 5500 GITC Newark, NJ 08823 John T. Demel Denice D. Denton Professor Dean Ohio State University University of Washington Dept. of Civil & Env. Engr. College of Engineering and Geodetic Science Box 352180 2070 Neil Avenue Seattle, WA 98195-2180 Columbus, OH 43210 Ann M. Diehl Charles A. DiMarzio Dean Prin. Research Scientist State University Northeastern University of New York 235 Forsyth Building Farmingdale, NY Boston, MA 02115 John O. Dimmock Roderic C. Don Director Research Assoc. II University of Alabama, University of Delaware Huntsville Center for Composite Materials 301 Sparkman Drive Newark, DE 19716 Huntsville, AL 35899 Anne Donnelly Earl H. Dowell OPS Tech./Educ. Coordinator Professor & Dean University of Florida Duke University 418 Weil Hall School of Engineering Gainesville, FL 32611 Office of the Dean Box 90271 Durham, NC 27708 John B. DuVall Paul Eagle Director University of Detroit, East Carolina University Mercy 105 Flannagan Mechanical Engineering Greenville, NC 27858 Detroit, MI 48219 Don E. Edwards Pamela A. Eibeck Assoc. Professor Northern Arizona University Texas Women's University Mechanical Engineering P.O. Box 425886 P.O. Box 15600 Denton, TX 76204 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Bruce A. Eisenstein Charles S. Elliott Professor Director Drexel University Arizona State University ECE Department P.O. Box 877506 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Tempe, AZ 85297-7506 Jack Elzinga Jane Gilbane Enterline Professor & Chairman Research Asst. University of Florida University of Washington P.O. Box 116595 Box 352120 Gainesville, FL 32611-6595 Seattle, WA 98195 Edward W. Ernst D. Fennell Evans Professor Director University of South Carolina University of Minnesota Dept. of Electrical Ctr for Interfacial Engineering Computer Engineering 110 Union Street, SE Swearingen Engineering Center Shepard Laboratories Columbia, SC 29208 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Louis J. Everett Phillip A. Farrington Assoc. Professor Asst. Professor Texas A&M University University of Alabama, Mechanical Engineering Huntsville College Station, TX 77843 ISE Department EB120 Huntsville, AL 35899 John F. Federici Marc J. Feldman Asst. Professor Professor New Jersey Institute University of Rochester of Technology Hopeman Hall Dept. of Physics Electrical Engineering 161 Warren Street Rochester, NY 14627 Newark, NJ 07102 John A. Fillo Susan Finger Assoc. Dean Professor State University of New York Carnegie Mellon University at Binghamton" Civil Engineering The Watson School Porter Hall 119 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Leroy S. Fletcher Sharon Foster Thomas A. Dietz Professor Project Associate Texas A&M University Ann Becker and Associates, Inc. Dept. of Mechanical Engr. 101 N. Wacker Drive College Station, TX 77843-3123 Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60606 Karen Frair Susan Frazier University of Alabama Asst. Director Box 870200 University of Maryland Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Inst. for Systems Research 2175 A.V. Williams Building College Park, MD 20742 Heinz Fridrich Morton B. Friedman University of Florida Vice Dean & Professor Dept. of Industrial Columbia University & Systems Engineering 500 W. 120th Street Box 116595 510 Mudd Gainesville, FL 32611-6595 New York, NY 10027 Craig R. Friedrich Eli Fromm Assoc. Professor Vice President Michigan Tech University Drexel University MEEM Department 3141 Chestnut Street 1400 Townsend Drive Philadelphia, PA 19104 Houghton, MI 49931 Jeff Froyd John M. Galvin Rose-Hulman Institute Deputy Coordinator of Technology Massachusetts Institute Electrical & Computer Engr. of Technology 5500 Wabash Avenue Room 20A-207 Terre Haute, IN 47803 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Carolyn Garrett Robert T. George Marketing Manager DuPont Continuous Ann Becker and Associates, Inc. Business Improvement 101 N. Wacker Drive Barley Mill Plaza, 15-2173 Suite 1150 Routes 141 & 48 Chicago, IL 60606 Wilmington, DE 19880-0015 Michael H. Gevelber Philip T. Go Boston University IT Director 15 St. Mary's Street Greenfield Coalition Boston, MA 02215 c/o Focus: Hope 1400 Oakman Detroit, MI 48238-2881 Bennett B. Goldberg Joseph I. Goldstein Assoc. Professor Dean Boston University University of Massachusetts, Physics Department Amherst 590 Commonwealth Avenue College of Engineering Boston, MA 02215 125 Marsten Hall Amherst, MA 01003 Weibo Gong Kurt C. Gramoll Assoc. Professor Assoc. Professor University of Massachusetts, Georgia Institute Amherst of Technology Dept. of Electrical Aerospace Engr. Building and Computer Engineering Atlanta, GA 30332-0150 Amherst, MA 01003 Andrea Greene Joel Greenstein Mgr., Assess. & Eval. Assoc. Professor Maricopa Community Industrial Engineering Colleges 538 Squire Circle 2411 W. 14th Street Clemson, SC 29631-2137 Tempe, AZ 85281-6941 Michelle Griffith Ian R. Grosse Sandia National Assoc. Professor Laboratories University of Massachusetts P.O. Box 5800 Dept. of Mechanical M50958 and Industrial Engineering Albuquerque, NM 87185 Amherst, MA 01003 H. Thomas Hahn Maria E. Hamilton University of California, Vice Pres., Operations Los Angeles Northwest Pennsylvania 48-121 Eng.IV Technical Institute Los Angeles, CA 90095 150 E. Front Street Erie, PA 16507 Leo Hanifin Hilary Harding Dean Project Manager University of Detroit, Educational Activities Mercy P.O. Box 1331 College of Engineering & Science 445 Hoes Lane 4001 W. McNichols Road Piscataway, NJ 08855 Detroit, MI 48219-0900 Thomas C. Harmon Rodney Harrigan Asst. Professor Associate Dean of Engineering University of California, NCA&T State University Los Angeles 1601 East Market Street Civil & Environmental Engr. Greensboro, NC 27411 5732 G Boelter Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095-1593 Paul Harris, Jr. Craig S. Hartley Purchasing Project Engr. National Science Foundation Black & Decker 4201 Wilson Boulevard 28712 Glebe Road Arlington, VA 22230 Easton, MD 21601 Martin Hawley J.J. Hayden, III Professor Director of Education Michigan State University Georgia Institute Composite Materials & of Technology Structures Center 813 Ferst Drive 2100 Engineering Bldg. Atlanta, GA 30332-0560 East Lansing, MI 48824 George Hazelrigg Jack Hebrank Design, Manufacturing, Adjunct Assoc. Professor Industrial Innovation North Carolina Suite 550 State University National Science Foundation Box 7910 4201 Wilson Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27695-7910 Arlington, VA 22230 Hoyt Heinmuller Mark R. Henderson Quality Systems Mgr. Co-Director Black & Decker Arizona State University 28712 Glebe Road 402 Goldwater Center Easton, MD 21601 Tempe, AZ 85287-6106 Chris Hendrickson Noah Hershkowitz Professor Professor Carnegie Mellon University University of Wisconsin, 119 Porter Hall Madison Pittsburgh, PA 15213 1500 Engineering Drive Room 337 Madison, WI 53706 Clarissa Hidalgo R.B. Sam Hilborn Research Assistant Dist. Prof. Emeritus Mass. Institute University of South Carolina Dept. of Civil & Envir. Engrg. Dept. of Electrical 77 Massachusetts Ave. and Computer Engineering Room 1-253 Columbia, SC 29208 Cambridge, MA 02139 Donald J. Hillman Siegfried M. Holzer Prof. & Head, Dept. of Comp. Sci. Professor Lehigh University Virginia Tech EECS Department Civil Engineering Memorial Drive West Blacksburg, VA 24061-0105 Bethlehem, PA 18015-3084 Gregory M. Hulbert Peter L. Jackson Assoc. Professor Cornell University University of Michigan Rhodes Hall 218 Dept. of Mechanical Engineering School of O.R. & I.E. & Applied Mechanics Ithaca, NY 14853 Ann Arbor, MI Roxanne I. Jacoby Jeff Jawitz Professor Educ. Devel. Officer Cooper Union University of Cape Town 51 Astor Place Centre for Res. in Engr. Education New York, NY 10003 Faculty of Engineering Private Bag Rondebosch 7700 Cape Town South Africa K. Jayaraman Roland D. Jenison Professor Professor Michigan State University Iowa State University Dept. of Chemical Engineering 2012 Black Engineering East Lansing, MI 48824 Ames, IA 50011 Aaron A. Jennings Elizabeth K. Judge Professor North Carolina Case Western Reserve State University University Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering Box 7908 Cleveland, OH 44106 Raleigh, NC 27695 Gretchen Kalonji Henia Kamil ECSEL Co-Director Admin. Assoc. University of Washington University of Michigan Materials Science Department 2219A GG Brown Box 352120 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125 Seattle, WA 98195 Elijah Kannatey-Asibu, Jr. Barbara Karn Professor National Science Foundation Universitiy of Michigan Bioengineering & Environ. Systems Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Suite 565 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 Robert Katt Sue Kemnitzer 1104 North Vermont Street National Science Foundation Arlington, VA 22206 ENG/EEC 4201 Wilson Boulevard Suite 585 Arlington, VA 22230 John M. Kennedy Yong Se Kim Clemson University University of Illinois Box 340921 104 S. Mathews Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Urbana, IL 61801 Clemson, SC 29634-0921 Thomas J. Kim Roger L. King University of Rhode Island Professor 102 Bliss Hall Mississippi State University College of Engineering Box 9571 Kingston, RI 02879 Mississippi State, MS 39762-9571 Gary L. Kinzel Allan T. Kirkpatrick Professor Professor Ohio State University Colorado State University Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Dept. of Mechanical Engineering 206 W. 18th Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80523 Columbus, OH 43210 Dale W. Kirmse Harold N. Knickle Assoc. Professor Associate Dean University of Florida University of Rhode Island Dept. of Chemical Engineering College of Engineering Gainesville, FL 32611 102 Blisa Hall Kingston, RI 02881 Frederick G. Knirk Allie Knowlton Professor Multimedia Associate University of Southern Greenfield Coalition California c/o Focus: Hope 948 W. 37th Street 1400 Oakman San Pedro, CA 90731 Detroit, MI 48238-2881 David A. Kofke Leslie R. Koval Assoc. Professor Assoc. Chair & Professor SUNY-Buffalo University of Missouri-Rolla 303 Fumas Hall Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Buffalo, NY 14260-4200 and Engineering Mechanics Rolla, MO 65409-0050 Sundar Krishnamurthy Raymond J. Krizek Assoc. Professor Professor University of Massachusetts Northwestern University Dept. of Mechanical Dept. of Civil Engineering and Industrial Engineering Evanston, IL 60208 Amherst, MA 01003 Philip H. Kunsberg Pamela Kurstedt Staff Member Asst. Dean Los Alamos National Virginia Polytechnic Laboratory University P.O. Box 1663 333 Norris Hall MS F684 Blacksburg, VA 24061-0217 Los Alamos, NM 87545 Harold Kurstedt John S. Lamancusa Professor Assoc. Professor Industrial Engineering Pennsylvania State 212A Hancock Hall University Virginia Inst. of Technology 157D Hammond Building Blacksburg, VA 24061 University Park, PA 16802 Joseph M. Laufer Jean M. Le Mee Assoc. Dean Professor & Chair Burlington County College The Cooper Union County Route 530 51 Astor Place Pemberton, NJ 08068-1599 New York, NY 10003 Penny LeBourgeois Peter Lee Asst. Director Dean North Carolina California Polytechnic State University State University Box 7920 Grand Avenue Raleigh, NC 27695 San Luis Obispo, CA 90407 Larry John Leifer Edwin LeMaster Professor University of Texas, Stanford University Pan American Center for Design Research Engineering Department 560 Panama Street 1201 W. University Drive Stanford, CA 94305 Edinburg, TX 78539 Steven R. Lerman Paula G. Leventman Massachusetts Institute Asst. Dean of Technology Northeastern University Cambridge, MA 02139 140 Snell Engineering Center Boston, MA 02115 Courtland Lewis Benjamin Liaw NSF Consultant City College of New York 3485 N. Sylvan Lane Steinman Hall, Room 233 Melbourne, FL 32935 Convent Avenue at 138th Street NY New York, NY 10031 Peter K. Liaw Marshall M. Lih Professor Division Director University of Tennessee National Science Foundation 430-C Dougherty Hall ENG/EEC Knoxville, TN 37996-2200 4201 Wilson Boulevard Suite 585 Arlington, VA 22230 John C. Lippold Jack R. Lohmann Director Assoc. Dean Ohio State University Georgia Institute 190 W. 19th Avenue of Technology Columbus, OH 43210 Atlanta, GA 30332-0360 Richard Lucic Kathy Luker Director, Ext. Affairs Co-Director, Engr. Learning Ctr. Duke University University of Box 90295 Wisconsin-Madison B233 LSRC College of Engineering Durham, NC 27708-0295 2630 Engineering Hall 1415 Engineering Drive Madison, WI 53706 Mark S. Lundstrom Jed S. Lyons Professor Assoc. Professor Purdue University University of South Carolina 1285 EE Building Dept. of Mechanical Engineering West Lafayette, IN 47907 Columbia, SC 29208 Carole M. Mablekos Edward B. Magrab PRIDE Project Mgr. Professor Drexel University University of Maryland 3141 Chestnut Street Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Philadelphia, PA 19104 College Park, MD 20742 Cesar Malave Charles J. Malmborg Assoc. Professor Professor Texas A&M University Rensselaer Polytechnic 239D Zachry Engineering Bldg. University College Station, TX" 77843-3131 Dept. of DSES-RPI 110 Eighth Street Troy, NY 12180-3590 Jack Marr Patrick McColl Professor of Psychology Middle School Outreach Teacher School of Psychology Minuteman Science Georgia Institute of Technology & Technical High School Atlanta, GA 30332-0170 758 Marrett road Lexington, MA 02173 Roy I. McCullogh Leon McGinnis Professor Georgia Institute University of Delaware of Technology Center for Composite Materials Atlanta, GA Newark, DE 19716 Stephen S. Melsheimer Jerry M. Mendel Assoc. Dean Associate Director of Education Clemson University University of Southern California 107 Riggs Hall 3740 McClintock Ave. Clemson, SC 29634-0901 Los Angeles, CA 90089-2564 William C. Messner Geraldine B. Milano Carnegie Mellon University New Jersey Institute 5000 Forbes Avenue of Technology Pittsburgh, PA 15213 DOE/NCE Newark, NJ 07102-1982 Don Millard Gregory R. Miller Rensselaer Polytechnic Professor Institute University of Washington 110 8th Street Dept. of Civil Engineering Troy, NY 12180 Box 352700 Seattle, WA 98195-2700 Ronald Miller Thomas K. Miller, III Associate Professor Prof. & Asst. Dean Dept. of Chemical Engineering North Carolina & Petroleum Refining State University Colorado School of Mines College of Engineering Golden, CO 80401 Box 7901 Raleigh, NC 27695-7911 Young B. Moon Lueny Morell Assoc. Professor Professor Syracuse University Univ. of Puerto Rico 433 Link Hall Office of the Chancellor Syracuse, NY 13244-1240 P.O. Box 5000 College Station Mayaquez, PR 00681-5000 John M. Morris Mario Munich Director California Institute of Technology Drexel University Center for Neuromorphic Gateway Coalition Systems Engineering Drexel University Electrical Engineering Philadelphia, PA 19104 Pasadena, CA 91125 Brandon Muramatsu Vincent G. Murphy Lecturer Professor University of California, Colorado State University Berkeley Dept. of Chemical and Mechanical Engineering Bioresource Engineering 3112 Etcheverry Hall Fort Collins, CO 80523-1370 Berkeley, CA 94720-1750 Raj Mutharasan Matt W. Mutka Professor Assoc. Professor Drexel University Michigan State University Dept. of Chemical Engineering A-714 Wells Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104 Dept. of Computer Science East Lansing, MI 48824 Mahmood Nahvi Priscilla Nelson Professor Civil & Mechanical Systems California Polytechnic Suite 545 State University National Science Foundation San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 John Noble Kevin O'Connor National Science Foundation Research Associate ENG/EEC Worcester Polytechnic 4201 Wilson Boulevard Institute Arlington, VA 22230 100 Institute Road Worcester, MA 01609 Charles R. O'Melia Matthew Ohland Johns Hopkins University Assistant Director 34 and Charles Streets SUCCEED Coalition Baltimore, MD 21218 Rt. 1, Box 568A Micanopy, FL 32667 Ortwin Ohtmer Barbara Olds Chair Professor California State University, Div. of Liberal Arts Long Beach & International Studies 1250 Bellflower Boulevard Colorado School of Mines Long Beach, CA 90840-8305 Golden, CO 80401 David F. Ollis Jim Painter Professor Plastics Engineer North Carolina Black & Decker State University 28712 Glebe Road Chemical Engineering Easton, MD 21601 Box 7905 Raleigh, NC 27695-7905 Beth Panitz Meg A. Papa PRISM Magazine Outreach & Publications Coordinator 1818 N Street, NW Carnegie Mellon University Suite 600 ECE Department Washington, DC 20036 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Adrian Papamarcou Joey K. Parker Assoc. Professor Assoc. Professor University of Maryland University of Alabama Dept. of Electrical Engineering Box 870276 College Park, MD 20742 Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Joy Pauschke Michael Pecht Program Director Director & Professor National Science Foundation University of Maryland ENG/EEC CALCE/EPRC 4201 Wilson Boulevard College Park, MD 20742 Suite 585 Arlington, VA 22230 Pietro Perona John Pezaris Deputy Director California Institute of Technology California Institute Center for Neuromorphic of Technology Systems Engineering Mail Code 136-93 Mail Code 21676 Pasadena, CA 91125 Pasadena, CA 91125 Sarah Pfatteicher Mary Poats Researcher, LEAD Center Program Manager Univ. of Wisconsin, National Science Foundation LEAD Center ENG/EEC 1402 University Avenue 4201 Wilson Boulevard Madison, WI 53706 Suite 585 Arlington, VA 22230 William Poffenberger Jessica Porter Focus:Hope Project Associate 1400 Oakman Boulevard Ann Becker and Associates, Inc. Detroit, MI 48238-2881 101 N. Wacker Drive Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60606 John W. Prados Lynn Preston Sr. Education Associate Deputy Program Director National Science Foundation National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard 4201 Wilson Boulevard Suite 585 Suite 585 Arlington, VA 22230 Arlington, VA 22230 Demetri Psaltis Bala Ram Director Professor California Institute North Carolina A&T of Technology State University Mail Code 136-93 Dept. of Industrial Engineering Pasadena, CA 91125 Greensboro, NC 27411 Shivakumar Raman Paul G. Ranky University of Oklahoma New Jersey Institute 202 W. Boyd of Technology Suite 124 Dept. of Industrial Norman, OK 73019 & Manufacturing Engineering Newark, NJ 07450 Vittal S. Rao Don H. Rasmussen University of Missouri-Rolla Clarkson University Dept. of Electrical Engineering Box 5705 Rolla, MO 64501 Potsdam, NY 13699-5705 Sohi Rastegar Derek Trent Reamon Texas A&M University Doctoral Student 233 Zachry Engineering Stanford University M.S. 3120 560 Panama Street College Station, TX 77843-3120 Stanford, CA 94305 Thomas M. Regan Donald E. Richards Co-Director Assoc. Professor University of Maryland Rose-Hulman Institute 2105 J.M. Paterson of Technology College Park, MD 20742 5500 Wabash Avenue Terre Haute, IN 47803-3999 James A. Richardson Robert W. Ritchie Assoc. Professor National Science Foundation University of Alabama DUE Box 870200 4201 Wilson Boulevard Dept. of Civil Engineering Suite 835 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Arlington, VA 22230 Vernon P. Roan Ronald J. Roedel Director Professor University of Florida Arizona State University 3950 RCA Boulevard Dept. of Electrical Engineering Suite 5003 Tempe, AZ 85267-5706 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Jose M. Roesset David W.H. Rogers Director Consultant University of Texas University of New Mexico at Austin 109 Comice Court 1200 Mariner Drive Telford, PA 18969 College Station, TX 77845 Michael Ruane Gary W. Rubloff Associate Professor Director Boston University University of Maryland 44 Cummington Street Inst. for Systems Research Boston, MA 02215 2167 A.V. Williams Building College Park, MD 20742 Janet C. Rutledge John D. Sahr National Science Foundation Professor EHR/DUE University of Washington Suite 835 Electrical Engineering Building 4201 Wilson Boulevard Box 352500 Arlington, VA 22230 Seattle, WA 98195-2120 Prem K. Saint Fathi M. Salam Professor Michigan State University California State University, 260 Engineering Building Fullerton East Lansing, MI 48824 Dept. of Geological Sciences Fullerton, CA 92834-6850 Dhushy Sathianathan Bruce Schimming Asst. Professor Program Manager Pennsylvania State Howard University University Dept. of Civil Engineering 245 Hammond Building 2300 Sixth Street, SW University Park, PA 16802 Washington, DC 20059 Roger A. Schmitz Mark Schumack Professor Assoc. Professor University of Notre Dame University of Detroit, 301 Cushing Hall Mercy Notre Dame, IN 46556 College of Engineering & Science Detroit, MI 48219 John T. Sears Warren P. Seering Education Director Director Montana State University Massachusetts Institute P.O. Box 173980 of Technology 366 EPS Building Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Bozeman, MT 59717-3980 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Warren Seider John R. Sevier University of Pennsylvania Assoc. Dean Dept. of Chemical Engineering University of Arizona 220 S. 33rd Street College of Engineering Philadelphia, PA 19104-6393 & Mines Bldg. 72, Civil Engr. 100 Tucson, AZ 85721-0072 Patricia Ann Shawaker Chief Coordinator Univ. of Southern California 3640 McClintock Avenue Suite 131 Los Angeles, CA 90089-2561 Bill Shelnutt Sheri Sheppard Assoc. Professor Professor University North Carolina, Stanford University Charlotte Center for Design Research Precision Engineering 560 Panama Street Charlotte, NC 28223 Stanford, CA 94305 Richard D. Sisson, Jr. Diana Slattery Director Renessalaer Polytechnic Worcester Polytechnic Institute Institute 100 Institute Road Worcester, MA 01609 James J. Solberg Allen L. Soyster Purdue University Dean of Engineering Potter 114 Northeastern University West Lafayette, IN 47907 College of Engineering Dean's Office, 230 Snell Boston, MA 02115 Michael M. Stanisic Patrick S. Stayton Assoc. Professor Asst. Professor University of Notre Dame University of Washington 365 Fitzpatrick Hall Bioengineering Aerospace & Mechanical Box 357962 Engineering Department Seattle, WA 98195 Notre Dame, IN 46556 Jon H. Sticklen Richard K. Swanson Assoc. Professor Project Director Michigan State University Oregon Institute Computer Science Department of Technology A714 Wells Hall Capital Center East Lansing, MI 48864 18640 NW Walker Road Beaverton, OR 97006-1975 Bill Swart George Taliadouros Dean Asst. Acad. Coordinator College of Engineering & Technology Minuteman Science Old Dominion University & Technical High School Norfolk, VA 23529-0236 758 Marrett Road Lexington, MA 02173 Daniel W. Talso Minoru Taya Research Assistant Professor University of New Mexico University of Washington Mechanical Engineering Building Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Room 206 Box 352600 Albuquerque, NM Seattle, WA 98195 Laura L. Tedder Chris Thompson Assoc. Dir, Education Sr. Research Engr. University of Colorado Georgia Institute Center for Optoelectronic of Technology Computing Systems GTRI-EOEML Campus Box 525 Marc Room 341 Boulder, CO 80309-0525 Atlanta, GA 30-332-0823 Guadalupe Torres Mohan M. Trivedi University of Washington University of California, Electrical Engineering Bldg. San Diego Box 352500 La Jolla, CA 92093 Seattle, WA 98198-2120 Joesph G. Tront Rao R. Tummala Asst. Dean Director Virginia Tech Georgia Institute College of Engineering of Technology 444 Whitlemore 813 Ferst Drive Blacksburg, VA 24061-0111 Atlanta, GA 30332-0560 A. Galip Ulsoy Selim Unlu Professor Asst. Professor University of Michigan Boston University Dept. of Mechanical Engr. 44 Cummington Street 2266 G.G. Brown Building Boston, MA 02215 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125 Belle R. Upadhyaya Pirooz Vakili Professor Assoc. Professor University of Tennessee Boston University 209 Pasqua Engineering Bldg. Manufacturing Engineering Dept. Nuclear Engineering Dept. 15 St. Mary's Street Knoxville, TN 37996-2300 Boston,MA 02215 Jorge Vanegas Krishna M. Vedula Georgia Institute Dean of Technology University of Massachusetts, School of Civil Lowell & Environmental Engineering One University Avenue Atlanta, GA 30332-0355 Lowell, MA 01854 Olaf von Ramm Pat Wagner Director Office Administrator Duke University Ann Becker and Associates, Inc. Box 90295 101 N. Wacker Drive B233 LSRC Suite 1150 Durham, NC 27708-0295 Chicago, IL 60606 Robert O. Warrington, Jr. Karan Watson Dean Assoc. Dean Michigan Technological Texas A&M University University Foundation Coalition 101 R.L. Smith/ME-EM Bldg. 204 Zachry Building 1400 Townsend Drive College Station, TX 77843-3127 Houghton, MI 49931-1295 Daniel J. Watts Jonathan Weaver Excutive Director University of Detroit, New Jersey Institute Mercy of Technology Detroit, MI 48219 Newark, NJ 07102 Paul R. Wellin David L. Wells Wolfram Research Academic Dean 100 Trade Center Dr. Focus:Hope Champaign, IL 61820 Center for Advanced Technologies 1400 Oakman Boulevard Detroit, MI 48238 Peter Wiesner John R. Williams Director, Cont. Educ. Professor IEEE Educational Mass. Institute of Technology Activities Dept. of Civil & Env. Engr. 445 Hoes Lane 77 Massachusetts Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854 Room 1-253 Cambridge, MA 02139 Richard Williams James R. Williams, Jr. Dean Deputy Director College of Engineering Carnegie Mellon University Cal. State University, Long Beach Electrical & Computer Engr. 1250 Bellflower Boulevard Hauerschlag Hall Long Beach, CA 90840 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Bryan D. Willson John H. Wolcott Director Vice President Colorado State University Karta Technology, Inc. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering 1892 Grandstand Ft. Collins, CO 80523 San Antonio, TX 78238 Melissa Wolfson John E. Wood University of Washington University of New Mexico Electrical Engineering Bldg. Mechanical Engrg. Bldg. Box 352500 Room 206 Seattle, WA 98195-2120 Albuquerque, NM 87131 Beverly Woolf James T.P. Yao Senior Research Scientist Professor Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst Texas A&M University Dept. of Computer Science College Station, TX 77843-3136 Box 34610 Lederle Graduate Research Center Amherst, MA 01003-4610 N. Yu Carl F. Zorowski University of Tennessee SUCCEED Coalition Knoxville, TN 37996-2030 N. Carolina Box 7901 Raleigh, NC 27695 _______________________________________________________________________________ Endnotes 1. Expanded version accepted for publication in the Journal of Engineering Education(January 1998 issue). 2. NRC. 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Board on Engineering Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 3. Drucker, Peter F. 1992. Managing for the Future: The 1990s and Beyond. Dove Audio, Penguin Books. 4. Calvino, Italo. 1988. Six Memos for the Next Millennium. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.