Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century

SHAPING OUR WORLD

SHAPING OUR WORLD Engineering Education for the 21st Century Edited by GRÉTAR TRYGGVASON DIRAN APELIAN

The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

Copyright Ó 2012 by The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. All rights reserved. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 (978) 750-8400. fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Wiley also publishes books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit the web site at www.wiley.com. For general information on other Wiley products and services or for technical support, please contact the Wiley Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tryggvason, Gretar. Shaping our world : engineering education for the 21st century / Gretar Tryggvason, Diran Apelian. p. cm. ISBN 978-0-470-92974-2 (pbk.) 1. Engineering–Study and teaching. I. Apelian, Diran. II. Title. T65.T76 2012 607.1–dc23 2011028224

The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

oBook ISBN: 9781118138267 ePDF ISBN: 9781118138236 ePub ISBN: 9781118138243 eMobi ISBN: 9781118138250 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS FOREWORD

ix

Charles M. Vest

PREFACE

xiii

CONTRIBUTORS

xvii

PART I THE NEED AND CONTEXT 1. MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION

1 3

Grétar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian

2. ONE WORLD: PREPARING ENGINEERS FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

19

Michael J. Dolan

3. ENGINEERS: LEADERS, INNOVATORS, AND BUILDERS

27

Diran Apelian

v

vi

CONTENTS

4. HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT

39

Dennis D. Berkey

PART II

EFFECTIVE PRACTICES

5. IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

53 55

Arthur C. Heinricher and Kristin Wobbe

6. GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

77

Richard F. Vaz, Natalie A. Mello, and David DiBiasio

7. FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

107

Svetlana Nikitina and David Spanagel

8. THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

123

Fred J. Looft and Yiming (Kevin) Rong

9. TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

151

Curtis R. Carlson and Jerome J. Schaufeld

10.

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

179

Michael A. Gennert, Fred J. Looft, and Grétar Tryggvason

11.

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

201

Richard D. Sisson and Nikolaos A. Gatsonis

12.

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING Kathy A. Notarianni

225

CONTENTS

PART III 13.

OUTCOMES AND IMPLICATIONS

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION: LESSONS LEARNED

vii

241 243

John Orr

14.

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

265

Eli Fromm

BIOSKETCHES

283

FOREWORD CHARLES M. VEST

This book is in large measure a memoir. It is the memoir of an institution, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Why would anyone want to read an institutional memoir, and why would an institutional memoir have a forwardoriented subtitle like Engineering Education for the 21stCentury? The answers will become apparent as the reader delves into this book. It should be read because it holds remarkably clear lessons and guidance for the future of engineering education. For the most part, it presents an in-depth view of the 40-year history of the WPI Plan. You may ask, “History?” Well, yes, but it is an intriguing Back to the Future kind of history, because in the 1970s WPI started down a path that many US engineering schools are just now attempting to define, build, and travel down today in the dawning years of this new century. The late 1960s and early 1970s were a time of social unrest, pervasive angst about our nation’s actions in Viet Nam, questioning of basic principles of all sorts, and rebellion against structure, including structure in higher education. Some institutions were badly damaged during these years by introducing ill-thought-out “reforms” that simply lowered standards, threw away any semblance of respect for intellectual discipline, endlessly fragmented knowledge, and brought political ideology to curricular areas where it did not belong. Other institutions in fact were substantially strengthened through bold actions planned through serious introspection and openmindedness. WPI presents a wonderful example of such strengthening through the establishment of the WPI Plan, a more-or-less radical, and certainly bold, new pathway through undergraduate engineering education. It was project-oriented, imparted to students early on an understanding of what engineers actually do, connected them in an experiential manner with the wider world, emphasized competencies in basic science and engineering techniques, and continually reminded them that engineers are absolutely

ix

x

FOREWORD

essential to meet most great human challenges, but that they cannot do so alone. All of this was, of course, prescient. Let me fast forward to today, the early years of the twenty-first century. What are engineering educators worrying about, and what is the new context in which their students, as engineers, will live and work? They are worrying about how to make their students understand early on the excitement and relevance of the engineering profession. They are worrying about how to address the reality and opportunity of globalization as literally hundreds of millions of people are rather suddenly becoming better educated, technically oriented, and businesses and processes are spread around the globe. They are worrying about how best to utilize the enormous computing power and instant communication through a vast and pervasive network that integrates us all together. They are worrying about how to attract more bright and creative students and prepare them to build economies and provide employment through innovation and entrepreneurship. And they are worrying about how best to immerse engineering students in an environment and expectations that will directly relate them to the great challenges of our times, feeding a world population approaching nine billion people; providing clean, affordable, and sustainable energy; delivering health care, and, more importantly, delivering health to the world’s neediest; and facing the many other grand challenges associated with the expanding human understanding, power, and impact on our planet. Now the Back to the Future nature of this book becomes apparent. The questions and challenges of engineering education in 2011 are congruent with the goals and nature of the WPI Plan as it was formulated 40 years ago. There are many lessons for us to learn, and they are laid out directly and well in this book. To see the congruence, we need look no farther than the subjects of WPI’s Great Problems Seminars that engage first-year students and are team taught by engineering professors and professors from other fields that would be needed to solve complex techno-social problems: . . . .

Feed the World Power the World Heal the World Grand Challenges

Well, OK, these specific topics were not introduced until 2007, but the point is that the educational style imbedded in the plan permits such introductions and the flexibility to adjust to a changing world. And this is a wonderful way to introduce students at the very beginning of their studies to what engineers do

FOREWORD

xi

and why it matters. Inspiration, motivation, and empowerment are built into the freshman year. From the beginning, the WPI curriculum included three Qualifying Projects: .

. .

The Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP) that engaged small student teams in addressing complicated, broad-based problems of societal importance, many carried out in other countries; The Major Qualifying Project (MQP) that is, in essence, a team-based capstone project; and The Sufficiency Project that demonstrates mastery of subject matter from the humanities and arts.

Today, WPI has established a Global Perspective Program (GPP) that enables 50% of its students to spend time in another country in intense project-based, experiential service learning—an admirable, indeed enviable accomplishment. These brief glimpses of the WPI Plan, its goals, and relevance to the future of engineering education raise a fundamental question, “Does it work?” That question undoubtedly was on the minds of the 33% of the WPI Faculty who voted against its adoption in 1970, and it should be on the mind of any educator interested in adapting this outcomes-based and project-centered educational program wholly or in part today. Fortunately, a good bit of assessment has been conducted throughout the plan’s history, and the assessment is summarized in this book. Although this volume is predominantly authored by WPI faculty members, including its president, additional authors have been included both to bring external and contextual perspectives, for example, Curtis Carlson, CEO of SRI International. Engineering Education visionary Eli Fromm also contributes a chapter. Throughout Shaping Our World, the authors have painstakingly related their work and thinking to a vast array of the contemporary literature of goals and means of engineering education. Hence, this book implicitly serves as a useful guide to this literature. Although I deemed this an institutional memoir, it is one that has a beginning, but no end in sight. The WPI Faculty has properly made the WPI Plan a living, adapting system with a constant philosophy of hands-on, project-based learning that signals relevance, builds student responsibility, and inspires and empowers them to use their technological skills to contribute to society.

xii

FOREWORD

I am grateful that editors Gretar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian have delivered this volume to provide guidance and lessons learned to engineering educators. There is much to be learned here, and much inspiration for change to be garnered. CHARLES M. VEST President US National Academy of Engineering

PREFACE

In the past two decades we have seen a plethora of studies, reports, and books that articulate the shortcomings of engineering education and what is lacking in the curriculum. These studies and reports have reminded us that the engineering curriculum has not changed much in the past few decades, while the world has changed dramatically. However, many of these studies have focused on identifying the problem and articulating the general needs, rather than outlining specific proposals on how to educate the engineer of the twentyfirst century. Both of us came to WPI from other universities; Apelian in 1990 from Drexel University, and Tryggvason in 2000 from the University of Michigan. Both of us oversees fairly large research groups and have a long track of scholarly accomplishments. We are also ardent students of engineering education and have been involved with various educational initiatives over the last two to three decades. At WPI, we found an educational program that does exactly what all the various studies have been calling for; namely, student outcomes that capture the attributes of the “Engineer 2020.” These undergraduate learning outcomes are as follows: . . .

Have a base of knowledge in mathematics, science, and humanistic studies. Have mastered fundamental concepts and methods in their principal areas of study. Understand and employ current technological tools. xiii

xiv . . . . . . .

PREFACE

Be effective in oral, written, and visual communication. Function effectively both individually and on teams. Be able to identify, analyze, and solve problems creatively through sustained critical investigation. Be able to make connections between disciplines and to integrate information from multiple sources. Be aware of how their decisions affect and are affected by other individuals separated by time, space, and culture. Be aware of personal, societal, and professional ethical standards. Have the skills, diligence, and commitment to excellence needed to engage in lifelong learning.

The paradox we were faced with is that the engineering community has been calling out what is needed, and yet at WPI, an educational paradigm was established in 1970 to do exactly what is being called for. This paradox was the genesis of this book. We decided to document and to write a user’s manual that describes how to do it, if you will, rather than writing as to what is needed and what is the problem. The title Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21stCentury represents our view and belief that through a holistic education we will ensure the development of the next generation of successful leaders and engineers. This is not a new suggestion: when the E´cole Polytechnique was founded in France during the French Revolution (1794), mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace stated that the E´cole Polytechnique should aim to produce young people “destined to form the elite of the nation and to occupy high posts in the state.” What is being followed today at WPI is true to our middle name of “Polytechnic,” similar to what the founders of the very first Polytechnique had in mind. The book is organized in three distinct sections: (i) The Need and Context; (ii) Effective Practices; and (iii) Outcomes and Implications. Four chapters provide the context, followed by eight chapters that describe effective practices throughout the undergraduate and graduate programs. Specific attention is given to project-based learning methods to ensure that the above-cited learning outcomes can be met. Lastly, two chapters address 40 years of outcomes and the path ahead. We are fortunate and privileged to have had a distinguished group of authors contributing to this book. In addition to our cherished faculty colleagues who contributed and assisted us, we are indebted to President Dennis Berkey of WPI for his support and encouragement. We also want to acknowledge: Michael Dolan, Sr. Vice President of Exxon Mobil Corporation for his chapter on preparing engineers for the Global Economy; Dr. Curt Carlson, President and CEO of SRI International for his contributions on the Innovation

PREFACE

xv

Economy; Prof. Eli Fromm of Drexel University, Roy Brothers University Professor and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Eli is the inaugural recipient (2002) of the Bernard M. Gordon Prize from the National Academy of Engineering for his significant contributions to engineering and technology education. He authored our closing chapter titled “So Much Accomplished: So Much to Be Done.” A biosketch on each author is given at the end of this book. We are grateful that we had such a cadre of remarkable contributing authors. In closing, we want to give special thanks to Laura Hanlan of WPI’s Gordon Library. She and her colleagues Lynne Riley, Joanne Beller, and Robin Benoit assisted us with the references and citations. We appreciate Michael Dorsey’s help in obtaining photos from our university archives. We also want to acknowledge the support and guidance of Anita Lekhwani of Wiley-Blackwell for her steadfast support. Lastly, we salute Dean Emeritus William Grogan, and the pioneering faculty of 1970 who were not content with the status quo, envisioned a future, and made it happen. DIRAN APELIAN GRE´TAR TRYGGVASON

CONTRIBUTORS DIRAN APELIAN, Howmet Professor of Engineering, Director, Metal Processing Institute, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA DENNIS D. BERKEY, President and CEO, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA CURTIS R. CARLSON, President and CEO, SRI International, Menlo Park, California, USA DAVID DIBIASIO, Department Head and Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA MICHAEL J. DOLAN, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Irvine, Texas, USA ELI FROMM, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA NIKOLAOS A. GATSONIS, Professor, Mechanical Engineering, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA MICHAEL A. GENNERT, Department Head, Computer Science, Director, Robotics Engineering, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA ARTHUR C. HEINRICHER, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

xvii

xviii

CONTRIBUTORS

FRED J. LOOFT, Department Head and Professor, Electrical & Computer Engineering, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA NATALIE A. MELLO, Director, Global Operations, Interdisciplinary & Global Studies, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA SVETLANA NIKITINA, Assistant Professor, English, Department, Humanities & Arts, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA KATHY A. NOTARIANNI, Department Head and Associate Professor, Fire Protection Engineering, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA JOHN A. ORR, Professor, Electrical & Computer Engineering, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA YIMING (KEVIN) RONG, Professor, Mechanical Engineering, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA JEROME SCHAUFELD, Professor, Entrepreneurship, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA RICHARD D. SISSON, Jr., Professor and Dean of Graduate Studies, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA DAVID SPANAGEL, Assistant Professor, History, Humanities and Arts, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA  GRETAR TRYGGVASON, Professor, Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA

RICHARD F. VAZ, Dean of Interdisciplinary & Global Studies, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA KRISTIN WOBBE, Department Head, Chemistry & Biochemistry, Associate Dean, First Year Experience, WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

PART I

THE NEED AND CONTEXT

CHAPTER 1

MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION GRÉTAR TRYGGVASON and DIRAN APELIAN

1.1 INTRODUCTION Engineering education is embarking on a transformation as profound as the birth of engineering as a profession in the nineteenth century and the establishment of scientific knowledge as the foundations of engineering in the middle of the twentieth century. The change is driven by the emergence of a connected, competitive, and entrepreneurial global economy, where successful engineers will need a technical competency and a professional skill set that differs from what worked in the past. Technology has made globalization possible and globalization, in turn, is affecting technology in profound and often unexpected ways. While globalization has increased prosperity and opened new and larger markets, globalization and Internet connectivity has also made available labor, that is often both educated and cheap. It is impossible to predict the long-term impact of these changes on the socioeconomic structure of developed and developing countries, but what is clear is that the prosperity of nations is intrinsically linked to a population with the knowledge and know-how to develop and produce goods and services that are competitive [1,2]. The education of innovative and entrepreneurial engineers is therefore of critical importance to every nation. The modern professional identity of engineers emerged in the early nineteenth century with the establishment of the Ecole Polytechnique in France and the foundation of professional engineering societies in England. The current way of educating engineers was already established by the early Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

3

4

MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION

twentieth century, but the content has, of course, changed significantly since then. The last major shift in engineering education in the United States goes back over half a century when the role of science in the educational program increased significantly [3]. Although some evolution certainly has taken place, those changes are relatively modest and the basic structure and course content of a modern engineering program is very familiar to someone educated in the 1960s. The time for another major reexamination of engineering education is overdue. Countless committees, taskforces, panels, and commissions have already addressed the need and eloquently emphasized that the competitiveness of the country and therefore our standard of living hinges on our ability to educate a large number of sufficiently innovative engineers [4–8, for example]. That the world has changed in fundamental ways during the past few decades is self-evident. Computers have fundamentally altered the way we live and work. They have, in particular, transformed our ability to deal with information and data. We are now moving rapidly toward a world where—for all practical purposes—we can process information infinitely fast, store infinite amount of data, and transmit data instantaneously, to paraphrase a statement made by Henry B. Schacht, the first chairman and CEO of Lucent Technologies Inc. in his commencement speech at WPI in 2001. As a result of the emergence of the Internet, knowledge has been “communalized.” Everybody has access to information about anything and—perhaps equally importantly—knowledge is no longer “owned” by the experts. High-school students can—and do—write articles on Wikipedia, just like the professors. This change has already transformed industries and raised fundamental questions about authorship and ownership of information and scholarly works. Computers have also empowered the average man and woman to create products that previously required large corporations with significant resources. In many aspects of digital media we have now reached the point that if we can imagine it, we can create it. As computer speed and software advances, this trend will continue and in next 20 years or so it is very likely—certain, actually—that a high-school student with a little bit of time will have the capability to create his or her full-length animated movie with virtual actors of the quality currently only produced by major movie makers. The same transformation is likely to happen to the creation of engineered artifacts, although the time frame may be somewhat longer: If you can imagine it, you can create it! Ordering components through the web and receiving them in the mail is now part of everyday life and e-manufacturing—where the customer sends an electronic description of a part to a manufacture who makes it and mails it back—is emerging [9]. While low cost manufacturing is currently made possible by outsourcing it to countries with low labor cost, cheap and flexible robotics is likely to be equally or more important in the future.

WHAT IS ENGINEERING?

5

The movement of labor intensive but low-skill industries to countries with low labor costs is, of course, not new. Such transfer has been largely responsible for the low cost and abundance of most manufactured goods and the rising importance of service over “stuff.” Today, however, the rise in education in nations where salaries are low and the connectivity that makes this cheap and educated talent available worldwide are gradually changing the nature of jobs that move oversees. Skill is rapidly becoming a commodity that can be bought from low-cost providers anywhere. It does not matter what you know how to do, someone else knows it too and is willing to do it for less. Thus, highly educated workers are no longer immune from the possible outsourcing of their job. The mechanization of labor and advances in transportation, taking place during the past century, coupled with the more recent information revolution and globalization of the economy, has brought us unprecedented opportunities and challenges. On the positive side is that the increase in our material wealth makes it—for the first time in history—realistic to talk about eliminating extreme poverty [10,11]. On the negative side is the possibility—for the first time in history—that human consumption of materials and energy may irreversibly damage the entire global environment [12,13]. Just as engineering brought us to where we are, engineering will be central to shaping the world of the future. Doing so will be both a daunting and an exciting undertaking! 1.2 WHAT IS ENGINEERING? A discussion of the future of engineering education is impossible without an attempt to define engineering. Such definitions are in abundance: “engineers solve problems,” “engineering is applied science,” “engineering is the use of science and mathematics to solve technical problems.” These definitions are about as accurate as describing Columbus as a sailor—true but vastly incomplete. Engineering is perhaps best understood in its relation to other disciplines. In Figure 1.1, we project several disciplines onto a plane defined by the physical versus the cultural world as one axis and study versus create on the other. The sciences obviously involve studying the physical world and humanities study the cultural world. Engineering falls squarely in the lower right quadrant (as does architecture, for example), thus sitting next to the sciences (studying the physical world) and the arts (creating the cultural world). Thus, engineering is properly described as the discipline focused on the creation of our physical world. Some professions, such as law and medicine, do not fit particularly well in this particular projection, pointing out important differences with engineering. Engineering is, of course, a profession. However, the fact that it fits naturally in the projection in Figure 1.1

6

MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION

FIGURE 1.1 Projection of different disciplines onto a plane defined by cultural versus physical and study versus create. Engineering is the discipline focused on creating our physical world.

emphasizes an important distinction from many other professions—namely that engineering is also a discipline with well-defined intellectual foundations comparable but distinct from the sciences, arts, and the humanities. This difference is clear if one examines the roots of engineering and its evolution (see [14], for example). The importance of recognizing the discipline of engineering as distinct from the engineering profession has recently been emphasized by Duderstadt [15]. Engineering in the United States owes much to both French and British traditions. Louis XV established a civilian engineering corps to oversee the design and construction of bridges and roads in France. In 1716 he established the Corps des Ponts et Chausse´es, which subsequently established a school to train its members; in 1747 Ecole des Ponts et Chausse´es was founded in Paris—the very first engineering school ever. This led to the founding of other technical schools in France, the Grandes Ecoles. The famous Ecole Polytechnique of Paris was founded in 1794 by Napoleon. The French recognized engineering as a noble profession that prepared the future statesmen and leaders of their society. Laplace, who served as the head of a commission to reorganize the Ecole Polytechnique, wrote that the Ecole’s goal is to produce young people “Destined to form the elite of the nation and to occupy high posts in the State.” The graduates of these Grandes Ecoles have over the years proven their “power” by occupying posts in the highest economic strata of French society [16]. Engineering in Britain evolved along a very different path. The English upper class believed in a much more classical education wherein the bright young males sought careers in the church or in the army. There was no meaningful governmental funding of higher technical education

WHAT IS ENGINEERING?

7

during the industrial revolution and it was not until the early 1900s that Cambridge and Oxford Universities established chairs in Engineering Science. Much of the industrial revolution was driven by individual ingenuity and entrepreneurial initiative. Knowledge was gained pragmatically in workshops and on constructions sites. Apprenticeships became the way young men went into engineering. As Samuel Florman has characterized it—“In France engineering became associated with professional pride and public esteem, with leadership at the highest level. Whereas, in Britain, engineering was considered a navvy occupation—the original navvies being the laborers on canal construction jobs” [17]. Both of these cultures, the theoretical foundation emphasized by the French Ecoles and the practical hands-on attitude of the British, permeated across the Atlantic and impacted the development of engineering education in America. Although it is possible to argue that the marriage of theory and practice played no small part in the phenomenal successes of American engineering in the twentieth century, finding the right mix challenged engineering educators throughout the century. As engineering education has changed in the past to adjust to the needs of society, the evolution must continue and change is needed to address the needs of the twenty-first century. With many approximations and generous error bars, we can summarize major trends in engineering education by the following classification (for a more fine-grained classification see Ref. [18]): Nineteenth Century and First Half of the Twentieth Century: The Professional Engineer. As engineering became a distinct profession, early engineering programs focused on providing their graduates with considerable hands-on training. However, the role of science and mathematical modeling slowly increased and gained acceptance. Second Half of the Twentieth Century: The Scientific Engineer. By midcentury, technological complexities required engineers to be well versed in science and mathematics and the engineering curriculum adjusted to the changed needs. This structure has, to a large degree, continued until the present time, although “design” content increased slowly. In the early 1990s, it was clear that more than science was needed and many schools started to emphasize nontechnical professional skills such as teamwork and communications. The twenty-first Century: The Entrepreneurial/Enterprising Engineer. The rapid changes that the world is currently going through, as discussed above, coupled with changes in engineering education starting to take place in the 1990s, will result in an extensive reengineering of engineering education. While the new structure will, almost certainly,

8

MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION

continue to be based on a solid preparation in mathematics and sciences, it is likely to emphasize the professional role of the engineer, and then demand new qualifications suited for the new world order. These changes were driven by needs. The professionalization of engineering coincided with an explosion in the creation of new infrastructure and mechanization and the need for people with the appropriate skills to design and oversee such projects. Similarly, the “scientifization” of engineering was a response to the realization that during the twentieth century, barriers to new engineering achievement were primarily our understanding of physical phenomenon. We could not build fast airplanes without understanding aerodynamics, we could not harness nuclear energy without understanding atomic physics, integrated circuits required understanding of solid-state physics, and so on. Engineers met the challenge learning what they needed to learn. There was a lot to learn and the learning consumed the profession for several decades. Indeed, for a while many engineers—academics in particular—became so enamored by what they were learning that they lost sight of why they were learning it. The distinction between engineering and science became blurred. The general public became confused too and could not distinguish the engineer from the scientist. A “rocket scientist” is, after all, usually an aerospace engineer! Engineering and science, however, make for a somewhat “strange bedfellows” in the words of E.E. Lewis [14]—a point reiterated by B.M. Gordon in his observation that the acronym STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) lumps together very distinct topics [19]. The difference, as von Karman famously said, is that “scientists discover what is, engineers create what has not been.” This observation is seconded in Figure 1.1. 1.3 THE ENGINEER OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY Engineering students and their teachers are already scrambling to adjust to a world where all information is immediately available and tools to analyze and create new artifacts are in abundance. However, as skill becomes a commodity and routine engineering services are available from low-cost providers that can be located anywhere in the world, engineering education has to add value beyond just teaching skills. It seems reasonably safe to expect that the added value will include an extensive exposure to innovation and entrepreneurship [4–8], which in turn requires students to become superb communicators and to understand the context of their work. In Ref. [20] we suggested that the entrepreneurial engineer of the twenty-first century is someone who:

THE ENGINEER OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

9

knows everything: can find information about anything quickly and knows how to evaluate and use the information. The entrepreneurial engineer has the ability to transform information into knowledge. can do anything: understands the engineering basics to the degree that he or she can quickly assess what needs to be done, can acquire the tools needed, and can use these tools proficiently. collaborates: has the communication skills, team skills, and understanding of global and current issues necessary to work effectively with anybody, anywhere. innovates: has the imagination, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the managerial skills to identify needs, come up with new solutions, and take it into the world. In some cases we are already making progress toward these attributes but in other cases we have a long way to go. The Internet has transformed our access to information in a way that is more like the invention of writing than the introduction of the printed book. Enormous amount of information is already available within a few clicks and everything ever written (and anything else that can be digitized) will be accessible within a few decades at most— probably not free, but certainly under a cost structure that will not impede access. We can now “google” any concept and the probability is that we will have an abundance of information in a matter of seconds. Thus, in some sense we already “know everything”—at least if we know how to ask. As search engines become more sophisticated, knowing how to ask is likely to become easier and the probability that the information we find is relevant will increase. The transformative effect of being able to access information instantaneously cannot be overemphasized. We all “know more than we know” because in addition to knowledge we possess, we also know where to find information about specific things. Most of us know how to fix our computers, not by knowing so ourselves, but by knowing whom to ask. The introduction of the Internet expanded this network of contacts to literally every piece of information that is out there. However, while finding information is already trivial, the communalization of knowledge will make it essential for the professional engineer to be able to judge the quality of the information that he or she has. Thus, teaching how to deal with an abundance of information and how to judge the relevance and the quality of the information at hand will be the educational challenge. Traditionally, teaching engineering students how to do certain tasks took up a significant fraction of the time in the curriculum. The explosion in the availability of tools to do nearly everything does, however, suggest that engineering educators must rethink how students are prepared in the

10

MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION

foundation of their disciplines. Computer programs to do virtually anything, from simple calculations to simulations of complex systems, to design a complete engineered artifact, and to create physical prototypes, empower the modern engineer to do more than his or her predecessors could ever imagine. These tools do, however, not only require the engineer to know how to use them but also require him or her to be able to first of all to assess what tool is appropriate for a given task and then to be able to evaluate the result in a critical way. Indeed, the importance of common sense will be even greater when design and analysis are done exclusively on the computer (as the saying goes: “to err is human, but to really screw up you need a computer”). While teaching engineering students how the physical world works will remain at the core of engineering education for the foreseeable future, reexamining how we teach the fundamentals of engineering science to students is needed. In addition to what we teach, how we teach is starting to change. Internet tutorials and guides are already available on many subjects and in many cases complete courses, often specifically designed for Internet delivery [21,22] are available. This trend will accelerate and the material will grow in sophistication. The National Academy of Engineering has identified “advance personalized learning,” where instructions “can be individualized based on learning styles, speeds, and interests,” as one of the Grand Engineering Challenges” of the twenty-first century; Christensen [23] has discussed the impact of computerized learning on our educational system; and many investigators are engaged in developing and improving such systems [24,25, for example]. Since engineers need to know many things and be able to do much, engineering courses generally tend to have high content density and most of the class time is spent on information transfer (this is what you need to know and here is how to compute the answer). In other disciplines the emphasis is very different. A course in the humanities, for example, typically will include considerable time spent on reflection and discussion of the material. We obviously appreciate the value of “reflections” in engineering and many instructors have attempted to incorporate more of that into their courses [26]. In most cases, however, the need to “transfer information” is so great that everything else is crowded out. Computerized and personalized learning has the power to relieve us from much of the information transfer part. The engineering student of the future is likely to learn thermodynamics, for example, interacting with a computer program that adjusts to his or her learning styles and speed, provides constant feedback and assures mastery of every step, rather than from a faculty member droning on (and on) in the front of the class. Furthermore, once the foundations has been mastered, the rest of the studying will often be on a “just-in-time” basis, as the engineering student needs specific mastery for a specific task. With much (or at least some) information transfer moved out of the classroom, the time with a faculty

THE ENGINEER OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

11

member can focus on other aspects of engineering, such as developing communication skills, an understanding of the social context of engineering and fostering innovative and entrepreneurial mindset. The professor is now a facilitator and a coach of the learning environment, and the traditional lecture format of instruction is not the modus operandi. Considerable progress has already been achieved in the United States to make communication in the broadest sense an integral part of the engineering curriculum [26,27]. Most programs now require their graduates to exhibit proficiency in oral and written communications and to be able to work on diverse teams. Engineering, possibly more than most professions, requires accurate and efficient communications—I have to understand what you are saying and vice versa for the design that we both are working on to function. Furthermore, in a world where highly networked organizations are increasingly replacing highly hierarchical ones, the ability to communication is key for professional success. The surprising thing about communications is not that engineering schools have recently started to emphasize it (motivated by ABET [27], in some cases), but that there ever was a need to remind educators that engineers need to communicate! However, in a global economy the ability to communicate takes on a much broader meaning. Not only are engineers frequently working on products that will be made in a different country and marketed to people of different cultures, but product engineering is increasingly done by teams consisting of people located in different countries and with diverse cultural background. Such interactions obviously have enormous potentials for misunderstanding and conflicts. Ron Zarella, CEO of Bausch and Lomb, said the following in a speech that he gave at WPI during a globalization workshop: We make a product called interplak. The electromechanical design for this home plaque-removal device is done in Germany and Japan. The batteries are supplied from Japan, the motors are built in the Peoples Republic of China, the charging base is made in Hong Kong, the precision molded plastic pieces are manufactured in Atlanta, GA, the brush head is made in Ohio, and the final assembly is done in Mexico.

Preparing young engineers to work in a global (or “flat” according to Ref. [28]) world is no longer something that engineering schools can treat as an extracurricular activity, available only to those who have the time and resources to spend an extra semester abroad. Every student must now develop the attitudes and skills necessary to function globally, right from the time they first enter the workforce. As important it is for the engineer to understand the physical sciences, the “show stoppers” of the new century are likely to have as much to do with

12

MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION

human behavior than with the laws of Physics. We have technical solutions that allow us (at least in principle) to provide unlimited power and we could probably curb (or at least reduce significantly) greenhouse gas emission with nothing more than current technologies. The question will increasingly move from “can we” to “do we want to.” The engineer is going to have to adjust to this environment. In addition to learning how the physical world works (and that will remain as important as ever) the engineer of the new century has to understand how humans behave. Attempts to understand human behavior go back to the beginning of the species. Historians have attempted to understand us, sociologists and economists have sought to predict our behavior, marketers have attempted to sway us, and politicians and religious leaders have dreamed about controlling us. For the most part we defy simple models, but in the last few decades our understanding of ourselves has moved forward significantly. We now know scientifically that we can be exasperatingly irrational (to the dismay of economists), have a strong sense of fairness, yet can be unspeakably cruel in the “right” circumstances (the Stanford experiment), make snap decisions, and depend intimately on each other. Some of our understanding comes from progress in medical imaging—where researchers are now literally able to see what we are thinking—and from a large number of careful behavioral studies. This progress is not just manifested by a flood of pop social science books [29–31] but also by increasingly sophisticated use of this knowledge in politics [32]. The importance of understanding how humans think, make decisions, and act is already evident in product design (the iPod contained no technological breakthrough, the Segway is a technological marvel), and we now know that failure to account for human behavior is often the main reason for catastrophic accidents (airplane crashes, Chernobyl). Understanding how to create systems, structures and products that work in harmony with how humans act will be central to the engineer of the twenty-first century. For him and her, social science may well become what physics was for the engineer of the twentieth century! 1.4 THE NEXT FEW YEARS AND THE WPI EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM Although the details of engineering programs of the future are difficult to predict (and they may look very different from each other), the following developments seem relatively safe bets: .

Development of competencies (knowing everything and being able to do everything) will increasingly take place outside the classroom through personalized computer-based learning, with time with faculty members

THE NEXT FEW YEARS AND THE WPI EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

.

.

.

.

13

devoted to the development of other professional skills (collaborating and innovating). The emphasis on innovation and entrepreneurship in societal context will increase. All engineering students will be required to understand the role of engineering entrepreneurship in taking technologies to society, including through the creation of commercial enterprises. The need to be able to collaborate effectively will take on an increased urgency. All engineering students will, in particular, need to develop the experience and attitude needed to work globally, in collaborations with people with different cultural perspectives. Graduate education will become increasingly important and all students planning a career in engineering will complete a MS professional degree. The BS degree will allow an “early escape” for those using undergraduate engineering education as a springboard for other professions. The PhD degree will become more professionally focused, possibly along with alternative advanced professional degrees. The demand for more customization of engineering education will grow, to suit the diverse career plans of a new generation of students who have increased expectations of institutions that serve them [33]. This will increase the number of electives within disciplines and the offering of interdisciplinary degrees.

Fundamental to the WPI Plan, introduced in the early 1970s, is the acknowledgment that education consists of providing the student with the technical competency needed to accomplish certain tasks and the professional maturity to decide what tasks to take on. In the original incarnation of the Plan a student could acquire technical skills anyway he or she chose, but had to pass a test to prove his or her competency. The competency exam proved to be too far ahead of its time (they were tedious to administer and unpopular with the students) and soon gave way to more conventional “distribution requirements” for courses. The professional maturity part of the plan, on the other hand, focused on project work and has been an unqualified success. WPI currently requires student to do two major projects, usually done in the junior and the senior year. The senior project is a capstone experience that demonstrates application of the skills, methods, and knowledge in the student’s chosen discipline to the solution of a problem representative of the type to be encountered in their career. In the junior project, on the other hand, the students “address a problem that lies at the intersection of technology and society.” Many junior projects are done at global projects centers, often located in the developing world, and currently over half of all students at WPI do at least one project abroad. The WPI Projects Program, including the junior and senior projects,

14

MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION

as well as the Global Perspectives Program, is discussed in more detail in Chapters 6, 8 and 14. The WPI project experiences are focused on developing the student’s professional mindset and prepare them to work collaboratively in an innovative, entrepreneurial, and global world. While WPI currently teaches the technical competencies necessary for the practice of engineering in a relatively conventional way, the emergence of “advance personalized learning” systems, where competencies can be acquired and assessed outside of the classroom, will allow the original philosophy of the plan to be revisited. Although the WPI Plan is now 40 years old, the faculty has continued to introduce educational innovations. The Global Perspectives Program was, for example, not part of the original plan. The WPI curriculum is designed to be relatively flexible and this flexibility has profound implications for how changes can be introduced. The flexibility does, in particular, encourage faculty entrepreneurship and experimentation. New ideas can be introduced and examined outside of the mainstream, and allowed to gradually gain their place in the curriculum, in a way somewhat reminiscent of Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovations [23]. Recent innovations include a Great Problem Seminar series designed to introduce first year students to projectbased learning and ignite their passion for tackling tough and important problems, and the first undergraduate Robotics Engineering Program in the United States. The Great Problem Seminars series is described in Chapter 5 and the Robotics Engineering Program in Chapter 10. 1.5 CONCLUSION It is unthinkable that our society can remain competitive and that we can sustain the present standard of living without a large number of people with the knowledge and know-how to innovate [1,2]. In the early days of our nation’s birth, Noah Webster claimed that democracy succeeds and prevails only if the people have economic and educational hope, and that these two are closely interlinked. To educate engineers ready to face the challenges of tomorrow, we must appreciate how profoundly the world has changed from just a few decades ago. With skill becoming a commodity, the engineer of the future must be able to do more than just perform technical tasks. There have always been extraordinary engineers who have had the imagination, vision, dedication, and endurance to change the way we live. Those who did not, however, were in the past able to make a living performing routine engineering tasks. The young engineers of the future must, on the other hand, all be extraordinary. They will not be able to enjoy the comfort of well-paid jobs where routine tasks are performed more or less unchanged year after year. More and more

REFERENCES

15

the engineer of the future will be responsible for creating new ideas and solutions and seeing them through. Innovation has already been identified as one of the most important factors in the future prosperity of both nations and individuals [1,2,7,8,34]. The engineering challenges are, however, even greater. Not only must the engineer innovate, he or she must also be able to help the innovation become a reality. Thus, the education of the engineers of the future must prepare them to see new opportunities as well as to give them the skills needed to marshal the resources to realize their ideas. We believe that engineering education needs to be transformed, and that such a transformation must include reengineering the curriculum to focus on and nurture the creative aspect of engineering.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The discussion here borrows heavily from an earlier article, originally published in JOM [20].

REFERENCES 1. J. Mokyr, The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. 2. D.S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Why Some Are so Rich and Some so Poor. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. 3. L.E. Grinter, “Report of the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 25–60, Sept. 1955. Reprinted in Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 74–95, June 2009. Available: http:// www.asee.org/resources/beyond/grinter.cfm. 4. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, (U.S.). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007. Available: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309100399/html/index.html. 5. Tapping America’s, Potential. The Education for Innovation Initiative. Washington, DC: Business Roundtable, 2005. Available: http://www.businessroundtable. org/pdf/20050803001TAPfinalnb.pdf. 6. National Science Foundation. The Engineering Workforce: Current State, Issues, and Recommendations. Final Report to the Assistant Directorof Engineering, 2005. Available: www.nsf.gov/attachments/104206/public/Final_Workforce.doc 7. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/ 10999.html.

16

MEETING NEW CHALLENGES: TRANSFORMING ENGINEERING EDUCATION

8. Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004. 9. See, for example, eMachineShop.com. “eMachineShop.com: Machine Custom Parts Online.” 2010. Available: http://www.emachineshop.com. 10. J. Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, New York: Penguin, 2005. 11. M. Yunus, A World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism, New York: Public Affairs, 2007. 12. A. Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. New York: Rodale Press, 2006. 13. L.R. Brown, Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. New York: Norton, 2006. 14. E.E. Lewis, Masterworks of Technology: The Story of Creative Engineering, Architecture and Design. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2004. 15. J.J. Duderstadt, Engineering for a Changing World. A Roadmap to the Future of Engineering Practice, Research, and Education. Ann Arbor, MI: The Millennium Project, University of Michigan, 2008. Available: http://milproj.dc.umich.edu/pdfs/ 2009/Engineering%20for%20a%20Changing%20World.pdf. 16. D. Apelian, “Re-engineering of Engineering Education—Paradigms and Paradoxes,” Alpha Sigma Mu invited lecture, presented at the ASM Fall meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, October 18, 1993; Advanced Materials & Processes, vol. 145, no. 6, pp. 110–114, June 1994. 17. S.C. Florman, The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996. 18. L.E. Grayson, The Making of an Engineer: An Illustrated History of Engineering Education in the United States and Canada. New York: Wiley, 1993. 19. B.M. Gordon, “Engineering Education Must Get Real,” New England Journal of Higher Education, pp. 28–29, Summer 2007. 20. G. Tryggvason and D. Apelian, “Re-Engineering Engineering Education for the Challenges of the 21st Century.” Commentary in JOM: The Member Journal of TMS, October 2006. Reprinted in IEEE Engineering Management Review, vol. 37, pp. 38–43, 2009. Also translated into Chinese (China University Teaching, vol. 12, pp. 84–86, 2008). 21. See, for example, Apple, Inc. “Mac Basic Tutorials: Find Out How.” 2010. Available: http://www.apple.com/findouthow/mac/. 22. The Mathworks website has several tutorials and interactive sessions. See, for example, Mathworks, Inc. “MATLAB Tutorial.” 2010. Available: http://www. mathworks.com/academia/student_center/tutorials/launchpad.html. 23. C.M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. 24. See, for example, JEDM—Journal of Educational Data Mining. Available: http://www.educationaldatamining.org/JEDM/.

REFERENCES

17

25. See, for example, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Available: http://jcal.info/. 26. P.C. Wankat and F.S. Oreovicz, Teaching Engineering. New York: Knovel, 1993. Available: http://www.knovel.com/web/portal/basic_search/ display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid¼1287. 27. ABET Board of Directors, “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.” 2008. Available: http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria %20and%20PP/E001%2009-10%20EAC%20Criteria%2012-01-08.pdf. 28. T.L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005. 29. R.H. Thaler and C.R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. 30. D. Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins, 2008. 31. J. Lehrer, How we Decide. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2009. 32. M. Grunwald, “How Obama is Using the Science of Change.” Time Magazine, vol. 173, no. 14, pp. 28–32, April 23, 2009. 33. N. Howe, W. Strauss, and R.J. Matson, Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York: Vintage, 2000. 34. C.R. Carlson and W.W. Wilmot, Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want. New York: Crown Business, 2006.

CHAPTER 2

ONE WORLD: PREPARING ENGINEERS FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY MICHAEL J. DOLAN

2.1 INTRODUCTION The evolution of the engineering professions has been well described in Chapter 1. Engineering remains an evolving profession. From its earliest roots as a repository of practical knowledge to the more recent focus on application of sound science and mathematical techniques, the one constant about the engineering profession is change. Engineering is dynamic and change is accelerating. It is always difficult to see what the future might be. Futurists are notoriously wrong on the details but right on the pace of change. Engineers provide tremendous value to society. They are the doers and the problem solvers. Generation after generation of engineers has helped improve standards of living around the world by applying science and technology to solve world problems. Because of their efforts, life spans are longer and living standards are higher. The world is a smaller place. The engineering profession will change in response to the needs of the society. Engineers are at their core problem solvers and so the needs of society (i.e., the current problems to be solved) will impact the nature of the engineering profession. And the engineering profession will evolve in response to the tools (such as information technology and computer simulation) available to the practitioners. This will help drive how work gets done. And finally, the engineering profession will evolve in response to the advance of basic science and understanding. Engineers use science as a key input and help deploy science to solve practical problems. As science advances, engineering

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

19

20

ONE WORLD: PREPARING ENGINEERS FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

must change to be effective conduits of new understanding to solve problems and meet societal needs. Of course the world has changed. The last generation of engineers went from the slide rule to the supercomputer; from the local design shop to the global delivery of engineering services; from engineer as “holder of knowledge” to engineer as team member and mentor; from a world of tightly controlled traditional engineering disciplines to multidisciplinary engineering teams blending the emerging sciences of computers and biology with the traditional engineering disciplines. As we look to the future of the profession and the way we educate our engineers, we must provide students with a robust tool kit that will help them not only grow professionally but also help them evolve as the needs of society and the tools at their disposal change. 2.2 ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN Engineers provide a variety of services in today’s world economy. These services run the gamut from routine and repetitive to novel and entrepreneurial. And yet all are important and all needs must be met. Engineers design foundations and roadways and piping and electrical networks. They support ongoing operations and manage large projects and maintenance activities. Many of these tasks have been commoditized as globalization occurred. In many ways, the traditional functions that engineers in these sectors perform have not changed much over the years but in other ways the change is profound. The way the work gets done has profoundly changed. No longer is it done in small offices with tables and charts. New computer tools serve as data and technique repositories accessible to all practitioners. With modern communication technologies, tasks can be performed anywhere there is expertise. In addition to technical competence, efficiency will be key. Although reduced in value over the years, these commodity engineering tasks still are needed and represent the highest volume of engineering services. But to adapt, the engineer needs new skills to harness the value in the new tools and access the highest valued talent in engineering centers around the world. Team work, management skills, and cultural awareness along with strong basic engineering competencies are all needed and valued. There is a continuum of engineering services that define the current landscape for engineers. At the other end, perhaps, is the engineer as integrator and entrepreneur. This is a role that engineers have always played. Certainly Edison and Westinghouse over a hundred years ago would be among the engineering entrepreneurs. It is an area of very high “value add.” It is also by

ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN

21

its nature the most difficult to define. These engineers must be well schooled in the basic competencies like mathematics and science as well as disciplinespecific topics. But the value added comes from blending strong basic engineering competencies with other skills. They must have an almost innate ability to assess market needs to see where opportunities exist. They most often have to integrate their discipline with others such as the soft science of marketing or with technical disciplines like computing or biotechnology. Often the best new ideas are found in the “white space” between traditional disciplines. The way this work gets done is largely on high performing, interdisciplinary teams, which places a premium on communication skills, good team skills and, increasingly, the ability to work across time zones and cultures. Participants must be conversant in the language of science, the language of business, and the language of engineering. By way of an example a third and perhaps newly emerging engineering role on this continuum is where technology overlaps with public policy. The world has great problems to solve like poverty, hunger, water scarcity, poor access to health care, and resource sustainability. The problems are very technical and the solutions will be increasingly technology based. Policy is increasingly more technically demanding and policy makers correctly look to engineers and scientists to provide input on both practical solutions and unintended consequences. For every action there is a reaction. And for every step forward by mankind there is an impact on the environment. As policy makers assess the various equities involved in their decisions, engineers can be valuable partners. Indeed, decision-making would benefit from having more engineers directly involved as policy makers to help bring the discipline of the scientific method to the world of policy. Thoughtful policy development that provides incentives for new technology development and stimulates free market solutions will be needed to solve these problems at the very large-scale they exist in the world of today. Engineers can play an important role to help policy makers set reasonable expectations for technological solutions. Although the pace of life has quickened, technologically development can still be a difficult and lengthy process often at odds with short time frames of the political world. Engineers working in this area will need to be well grounded in mathematics, science, and engineering. They will need to be capable team members and excellent communicators. And they will need a high awareness of the world around them and an understanding of the political process, which can often be frustrating to solution-oriented engineers. They will need to know how engineering can impact society and understand how public policy can interact with science, technology, and business. In my own career I have seen the power of engineers as policy advocates both at home and abroad. Their solution orientation coupled with the sincere

22

ONE WORLD: PREPARING ENGINEERS FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

and straightforward approach favored by engineers can be very powerful when combined with an understanding of societal needs and political pragmatism. 2.3 SO WHAT DO WE WANT AND WHAT DO WE NEED? Although this question fits well here, I must admit that I learned a long time ago not to ask it. As a young engineer I had a boss whose only answer to this regardless of context was “more, better, faster.” I stopped asking not because I knew what his answer would be, but because I realized that this is what the world wants and what society needs. It is the same for us in engineering education if we are to meet the great challenges of the twenty-first century and if we are to provide our new engineers the toolkit to carry them through a tempestuous 40-year career. Let us Start with More: Like a modern day Oliver Twist, society wants more. More of what engineers do. Solve problems. Find solutions. Create new things. Add more value. For engineers this starts with the hard engineering competencies. The engineer of the future will need to be well schooled in the basics of engineering science – perhaps more so than in the past. Many of the basic tasks are now codified in the new tools (computer databases, simulations, and the like) and this new way of working presents practicing engineers with new challenges. Practicing engineers have had a tremendous boost in productivity with these new tools. This means that more data and more designs will pass by the practicing engineer for his or her stamp of approval. Each design, no matter how basic, still needs the highest level of quality control, despite the speed of today’s engineering environment. In times past every design made its way to the chief engineer who was the final quality check and the repository or information, know-how, and experience. Today, the simulation and design tools are the repository themselves. They create tremendous benefits in how knowledge gets shared around the world as quickly as electrons can flow. In many offices, the practicing engineer is the sole quality control check as the pace of work accelerates. A better grounding in the basics will enable the practicing engineer to understand better the output from the new tools so that they can ensure that work is still performed to the high standard that society expects. And Then There is Better: The engineer plays an ever-increasing role as the integrator and entrepreneur. Our new engineers will need a deeper understanding of science, engineering, and mathematics than we had 40 years ago. We cannot skip the basics, and in fact should move some

SO WHAT DO WE WANT AND WHAT DO WE NEED?

23

graduate-level topics into the undergraduate program to give students a more complete fundamental grounding in their discipline. And the curriculum will need to have capstone professional experiences (like the Major Qualifying Project at WPI discussed elsewhere in this text) to give students a richer technical experience valuable to their professional development. Not all engineers will serve in these high value-added roles. But those who do will need to be exposed to the soft sciences of marketing and economics. They will need to have good team skills and understand the nature of innovation. The nature of work has changed and continues to change. How work gets done continues to evolve. Every day it becomes less individualized and more team-based. Every day it becomes less local and more global. Every day it becomes more interdisciplinary and less traditional. As a result, soft skills will be in demand even more in the future. Working on teams, listening, writing, speaking, and presenting ideas clearly are among the skills that engineers must develop: Challenging ideas and looking for ways to add value throughout the innovation process. And again we need more. We need higher levels of competence. Team-based models should be used throughout the curriculum whenever possible. Group problem-solving techniques should be taught as a first step in helping students develop innovation skills. And teams are increasingly diverse. Not just in the disciplines brought to bear on a problem but often times across time zones and cultures. Cultural awareness is increasingly important and can be fostered through structured learning and through project work (the WPI Interactive Qualifying Project and International Project Centers discussed elsewhere in this book are excellent vehicles for this). And Finally Faster: The world is a flatter place. Time zones are compressed. Work moves around the world at the speed of electrons. And engineering is done where it can add the most value. The result is an everchanging landscape for the practicing engineer. Our new engineers must understand change and change management. They must embrace the change as a positive aspect of their careers. Engineers will find themselves working on global problems and on problems for global clients. They will find customers for their ideas and services in the global market place. They will collaborate with others who are distant from them either elsewhere in their country or elsewhere in the world. Understanding the global nature of work and how to work with diverse customers and business partners will be valuable skills. In the new world of speed and global competition, the education of engineers must also focus on professional integrity and ethics. With

24

ONE WORLD: PREPARING ENGINEERS FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

less oversight and the demand for rapid solutions, the checks and balances of the engineering profession have been somewhat eroded. The chief engineer no longer checks all the calculations and assumptions. And operation in other cultures with different standards and mores can take decisions, which a generation ago were “black and white” and make them appear “gray.” For engineers in the field it can start small: a look past some obvious impacts to meet a deadline, a failure to check data reasonability, or a misstatement of facts. The acceptance of perceived cultural norms in developing parts of the world not in line with good engineering practice can provide an excuse to compromise ethics. The engineering curriculum must include ethics and integrity embedded in the courses and projects as discussions, scenarios, and role plays. Ethical challenges often come at night or over the weekend. They pop up when deadlines loom and cost pressures increase, and often in far away places given the global nature of engineering today. Young engineers must be sensitized to these issues. Good ethics and professional integrity makes for good business results and for professional success. Our engineering colleagues in Canada have a wonderful tradition of reminding graduating engineers of the importance of integrity and ethical practice. When an engineering student graduates in Canada, he or she takes part in a special ceremony called the “Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer.” It is closed to the public and all nonengineers. Like the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors, the “Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer” invites graduates to understand the ethics and obligations of their career. On this solemn occasion, the engineering graduate receives a ring to wear on the little finger of the working hand (i.e., the hand they draw with). The ring is designed to rub against the drawings and designs of the engineer, serving as a constant reminder of the ceremony—and the ethical obligations of our profession every day. 2.4 SUMMARY The world will change over the working life of these new graduates in ways we cannot imagine. We know that the constant will be change and the pace of change will be ever increasing. We know that the world will be increasingly technical and that solutions to the world’s problems will need more and better-trained engineers. We know that the strong trend we see today toward globalization of work (especially technical work) will increasingly provide new competition for our engineering graduates from all corners of the world.

SUMMARY

25

Engineers will need: . . . . . . . .

Above all else, good grounding in the basics of their discipline. A deep fundamental understanding of their area of concentration to remain competitive as basic engineering skills become commoditized. Excellent computer and modeling skills to improve productivity and knowledge transfer and sharing. Practice in the tools of innovation and team dynamics. A love of learning throughout their career and an understanding that both engineering and the way work is done will evolve and change. An ability to work in a team-based environment and to appreciate interdisciplinary ideas. An acceptance of the globalization of work and the opportunities it creates as well as an appreciation for diverse cultures. And a devotion to professional integrity and ethical engineering practice.

The education of engineers is a shared responsibility between the university, the student, and ultimately the employer. It is unreasonable to expect that the university alone can achieve all of this. Universities should focus on the top items on this list and set high standards for building these skills and competencies. We should avoid the trap of cutting out the fundamentals to make room for the enrichment. To the degree that the remaining items on the list can be integrated into the curriculum in creative ways, the new engineer will have a powerful foundation for building a successful career in whatever direction she or he decides to go.

CHAPTER 3

ENGINEERS: LEADERS, INNOVATORS, AND BUILDERS DIRAN APELIAN

3.1 INTRODUCTION: PERSONAL REFLECTIONS It was in the early 1990s, a wintry night. I was meeting up with Michel Besson, the newly appointed CEO of Saint-Gobain/Norton at the Worcester Club. Besson had just moved from CertainTeed Corp. in Valley Forge, PA, and I had just moved to WPI from Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA. We knew each other from Philadelphia days, and we were meeting up to catch up and to reconnect in New England. Mr. Besson had just flown in from Paris with his executive team. As we sat down over a glass of wine, he told me that he was puzzled by the cultural differences of the role of engineers in America versus France. Michel told me that when he filled the customs form at Logan entering the US from France, he, being a CEO, had named his occupation as Engineer/ Ingenieur, whereas his executive team members, who held advanced degrees in engineering, identified themselves as Vice President, Head of Marketing, and so on. Interestingly, that same week I had seen a print ad for Marriot hotels where a man, dressed in blue overalls, is changing the bulb in a table lamp. The tagline read “Our engineers work around the clock to serve you.” This image of an “engineer” was contrary to my knowledge of the profession and it so irked me that I wrote Mr. Marriot himself to address the ad’s incorrect interpretation of what engineers do. Soon thereafter, the ads ceased to run. This is in contrast to the ad that Credit Suisse ran in the Economist in the spring of 2010—see inset. Here the engineer is portrayed as a successful professional.

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

27

28

ENGINEERS: LEADERS, INNOVATORS, AND BUILDERS

My family migrated to America in 1960 when I was 15 years old; we arrived into New York harbor, passing the Statue of Liberty, a sight that is etched in my mind. Before coming to America, I had gone to a Lycee in Beirut, Lebanon, and was well versed in several languages except English, and yet I felt no fear. If anything, the feelings of hope and the opportunities that awaited us in the new land were so profound and huge that it overshadowed any doubts or uncertainties. You see, I had the same perceptions as Mr. Besson about engineering as a profession. I had the good fortune to have some wonderful mentors when I was at the Lycee, and family members, who had made it quite clear to me that as an engineer, I could be a banker, a businessman, a statesman (a better term than a politician), a leader of industry, or anything I wanted to do. So from a young age, I knew what I wanted to do. I wanted to make a difference, and I wanted to be in charge of the journey. I wanted to be an engineer when I grew up.

3.2 SOCIETAL CONTEXT As we have discussed in Chapter 1, engineering has a rich history throughout civilization. Engineers solve problems, make things happen, and enhance the

SOCIETAL CONTEXT

29

quality of life on this planet. This has always been a constant; however, what changed over time have been the needs of our society and how engineers have responded to those needs. The historical record of engineering accomplishments before and after the Renaissance is a testimonial to the will and ingenuity of early engineers; and this is before there were engineering schools. Leonardo da Vinci and his works and journals are also a testimonial of a genius at work. A few hours in the Duomo in Florence, Italy points out the genius of the master engineer Filippo Brunelleschi; however, when one studies the details of how the Duomo [1] came to be, one understands that the early engineers were innovators, businessmen, and leaders. Up to the Industrial Revolution, a nation’s GDP and population were linearly related and an agrarian society prevailed. Before the 1800s, countries such as China and India had larger GDPs than the US or the UK. During the late 1800s, engineers were responsible for profound innovations and inventions to meet the needs of the Industrial Revolution. Engineers made things, built bridges, and established mass production; in so doing they transformed us from an agrarian society to an industrial one. Moreover, with the advent of the Industrial revolution, the paradigm changed and we witnessed the GDPs of western countries grow irrespective to their population. A country such as England with a population of 20 million people experienced productivity increases that were unprecedented. The Industrial Revolution changed the “game”; many countries were left behind, with the West leading the economic growth. In the 1900s with the advances in solid-state physics and our understanding of the atomic structure, engineers learned science and became scientists because they needed the science base to solve the problems facing society. This includes the needs for defense (A-bomb, supersonic aircrafts, weaponry) to the development of the semiconductor, and the electronic materials revolution (Information age), among many other inventions. As one looks back and reflects on the last 60 years, what is most astounding is the number of discoveries and events that occurred, which have significantly altered our lives [2]: Sputnik’s launch into outer space (1957); lasers (1958); silicon single crystals grown for semiconductors (1960); man landing on the moon (1969); soft contact lenses (1972); CAT scan (1972) and MRI (1981) diagnostics; PCs introduced (1981) and world wide web available to the masses (1991); and not to mention the end of the cold war in 1989. Could we have predicted these discoveries and events back in 1957? I do not think so. However, one thing that is constant over time is human innovation and creativity, the engineer’s ability to address societal needs, and the entrepreneurial spirit of engineering. I believe that going forward, one thing we can bet on is man’s ability to innovate and address societal needs. We entered the twentieth century with 1.6 billion people, and exited the twentieth century with 6.1 billion people. By the end of 2010, we have 7 billion inhabitants on our planet. For the first time in the history of the world, we

30

ENGINEERS: LEADERS, INNOVATORS, AND BUILDERS

have witnessed that in a short period of two decades (1980–2000) one third of the world population increased its quality of life significantly. With flattening of the world, the playing field has leveled out. You can think of rebooting or resetting of the world—call it World 2.0, or as Bill Mckibben has titled his recent book, eaarth (different than the present planet as we know it: Earth) [3]. As we enter the twenty-first century, globalization and “flattening of the World” is a reality that is transforming the role of engineers and engineering. For the twenty-first century, engineers need to be enterprising and must lead to address the needs of our society (global society). With 18% of the population lacking access to safe drinking water, 40% having no access to sanitation, energy consumption increasing at a higher rate than population growth, and health care needs and expectations increasing out of sync with the cost of health care delivery, there is no doubt that the engineer for the twenty-first century has to be a social scientist and an enterprising leader to meet these needs. During the twenty-first century we will see our world population increase to about 9.5 billion people and much of this growth will occur in the developing nations. Societal needs regarding energy resources, transportation, housing needs, materials recovery and recycling, and biomaterials and health will only escalate. The challenges we face for a sustainable development of the globe are immense. This is precisely why engineering should be so attractive to the next generation; we need to make the case that engineering is an enabling profession. The case for engineering as an enabling profession for sustainable development of the globe is powerful; however, this connection is not explicitly made. As Oliver Morton recently wrote in the Economist [4]: “It’s all very well to recycle, pester your parents about fuel efficiency and aspire to holidays that need no flights. But the best thing a bright young person can do to help rid civilization of fossil fuels is get an education in engineering.”

3.3 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES The dilemma we are facing in the US is that the interest in engineering is declining and more significantly it is declining within white males [5]. Furthermore, if we examine the “production” of engineering graduates around the globe, we in the US lag many of the G8 countries. In China about 20% of university students are studying engineering; in Germany and other parts of Europe it is in the lower teens, whereas in the US it is less than 5%. What is most alarming is the poor performance of our students in the basic sciences in comparison to many other countries [6]. It is clear that much work needs to be

ENGINEERING FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A WORLD OF OPPORTUNITIES

31

done to revitalize the interest in engineering, and to articulate that engineering is a social enterprise. Engineering curricula have become a commodity and are now available to students all over the world via the net. What will differentiate the US engineering graduates from those in other countries? To remain competitive, we must graduate innovative leaders for an increasingly technological society. Innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship as well as the societal context of engineering ought to be central to the new curriculum for the twenty-first century. Linkages between the engineering profession and societal needs ought to be explicitly articulated; the latter will inspire and attract students to the profession. At present, the public’s image of engineers and engineering does not reflect reality. It is a fact that many of our top industrialists and successful CEOs are engineers; we have many surgeons and physicians whose first degree is in engineering. We have bankers and financial tycoons who are educated as engineers. There is no limit. The image of engineering needs to be changed to reflect the boundless opportunities and lifestyles that await our graduates. Perhaps we need to revert back to the image of the Polytechnicien when the Grands Ecoles were founded back in 1794; we need to engage our young about the leadership opportunities engineering offers. Moreover, we need to have a unified message. At present, the message regarding engineering as a career path is fragmented. The message articulated by civil engineers (ASCE), mechanical engineers (ASME), metallurgists and materials scientists and engineers (ASM, TMS), electrical engineers (IEEE), and chemical engineers (AIChE) is not the same. The various messages differ and they ought to be the same—we need a unified message. The National Academy of Engineering has made great strides in this vein by launching “Changing the Conversation” initiative [7]. Perceptions and cultural perspectives take time to change; however, the effort needs to be vigilant and persistent.

3.4 ENGINEERING FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A WORLD OF OPPORTUNITIES Sustainable development in the twenty-first century is perhaps the most pressing issue we face. At the same time, as pointed out above, it is the best of times for engineering; the future is bright as we are entering a different era where the innovation economy will prevail. Thomas Malthus observed back in the 1700s that population was growing faster than agricultural production in England. Population growing geometrically and the food supply increasing arithmetically. We have come a long way in agricultural innovations to feed more people than we could have ever

32

ENGINEERS: LEADERS, INNOVATORS, AND BUILDERS

imagined. However, with the burgeoning earth population, the real question is not how many people the earth can support but how many people the earth can support with what quality of life? Sustainable development is the key. Sustainable development is the level of human activity that can meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Although there are many challenges we face, there are five distinct ones that will be discussed here pertinent to engineering. These challenges offer a vista of opportunities for the next generation of engineers. 3.4.1 Energy The global demand for energy is growing at alarming rates, and the demand from developing countries will further exacerbate the situation. The current energy utilization worldwide is about 14 terawatts, and by the end of the twenty-first century, it may reach 50 terawatts [8]. There has to be a shift to renewable energy sources from fossil fuels, which today supply about 80% of the world’s energy. Earth-based renewable sources of energy (i.e., hydroelectricity, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.) will not be sufficient to meet the energy consumption needs of the world. Solar power will certainly be an important resource. We will see future material developments in nanostructured materials, advanced photovoltaic materials such as nanocrystalline Si thin films and novel chalcogenides, advanced catalysts with more accessible surface area, nanostructured catalyst supports, and membranes. LEDs with enhanced quantum efficiency for lighting devices will also play an important role The outlook is optimistic, especially when we see initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the US and in certain European Nations—for example, Finland. In the US, a tenth of venture capital is invested in clean energy. The Economist estimates that the total investments going into clean energy in 2006 was $63 billion (versus $49 billion in 2005 and $30 billion in 2004) [9]. Tekes, the National Technology Agency of Finland announced targets for increases in total consumption of renewable energy by 40% by the year 2025 [2,10]. 3.4.2 Transportation Global consumption will increase significantly in the next few decades, especially when some of the developing countries are experiencing annual growth rates of around 8% for several years in succession. In 1995, bicycles were the predominant mode of transportation on the streets of Beijing; today cars have replaced bicycles. The contrast is astounding. Transportation is a

ENGINEERING FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A WORLD OF OPPORTUNITIES

33

basic human need, and we need to develop future materials and modes of transportation to meet the demands of our society in a sustainable way. Public transportation will need to be the dominant means of transporting the masses. This certainly has been effective in Japan, France, and many other European countries. Developments will occur in high-speed trains and the infrastructural needs to accommodate these lines will be challenging. Lightweight structural materials, specifically alloy development and processing will be the focus of future materials—that is, foamed structures, magnesiumbased components, and advanced aluminum alloys that can be selectively stiffened. Future materials will certainly include innovative material uses such as recyclable composites, and biocomposites. Duralin fibers (made by Ceres in the Netherlands) are produced when flax straw is steamed, dried, and cured [2]. Strong and lightweight materials, sustainability and material recyclability will be some of the major factors influencing the development of future materials for our transportation needs. However, technology alone is not the answer. We need leadership in developing national policies not solely by lawyers but engineers. The role of advocacy that our professional engineering societies must shoulder is pivotal and needs to be supported. 3.4.3 Housing Housing has always been a fundamental human need. With increasing world population, the engineering community has an opportunity to make a major impact by developing novel construction materials that are sustainable, green, and energy efficient, as well as construction materials that are affordable for the masses. World poverty is not receding. Today, nearly three billion people, almost half the world population, live on less than two and half dollars per day [2]. Globalization is wonderful in that it thrives on market economies and promotes democracy. However, the latter does not necessarily mean that wealth will be distributed evenly. There are many local issues in the less developed countries, and the solutions need to be local ones. Shelter needs for the world population requires novel material solutions and novel housing designs. In the future, we will see more energy-efficient homes that use intelligent materials and intelligent designs. As an example, the Institute of Solar Energy Systems in Freiburg, Germany discovered a means to integrate the temperature equalizing effect of thick walls within a millimeter thin layer of plaster [11]. The impact on energy savings, reduction of pollutants is significant. The premise is that much more needs to be done in this whole arena of intelligent materials that are green and energy efficient—a fertile area for engineering discoveries and innovations.

34

ENGINEERS: LEADERS, INNOVATORS, AND BUILDERS

Future developments will be realized through innovative design and collaboration with architects and builders. The engineering community has an opportunity to partner with leading architects to address energy efficient and sustainable construction materials, as well as providing shelter needs for the masses. 3.4.4 Material Resources Recovery and Recycling Between 1960 and 2000, the municipal solid waste generated in the US increased from 88 million to 232 million tons. On average, each American produced 4.5 pounds of garbage each day in 2000 (up from 2.7 pounds in 1960). This waste is either burned (emitting pollutants) or deposited in landfills introducing toxic substances to groundwater and the soil [12]. If we examine the toxic materials that are found in municipal solid waste, there is need for concern. It is astounding that one third of the world’s copper is found in landfills [13]. Future world needs will require materials that are recyclable or biodegradable, and a whole new paradigm for designing components by adopting a cradle-to-cradle philosophy. Recycling of metals will be a critical technology in the world of tomorrow; it is certainly an important technology today; however, the need for recycling will escalate enormously as the world’s appetite for consumption increases. Recycling 1 kg of aluminum saves up to 6 kg of bauxite, 4 kg of chemical products, and 14 kWh of electricity [14]. Sorting of metals rapidly, and sorting them by their specific composition will allow us to recycle effectively and efficiently. Moreover, with increasing sources of scrap (e.g., beverage cans), and with enabling technologies that allow rapid recycling as well as rapid melt cognition (e.g., LIBS technology [15]), the concept of aluminum mini-mills will be a reality. We need to keep in mind that inorganic materials are not renewable, and the opportunities are vast when it comes to resource recovery and recycling. 3.4.5 Biomaterials and Health Life expectancy over the years has increased significantly. During the last five decades alone, life expectancy has risen by 15% (from 69 to 80 years) in North America, and we see similar trends across the globe except for Sub-Saharan Africa [2]. More importantly, not only are we living longer, however, life quality has dramatically improved thanks to the many advances in medicine, biology, and materials science and engineering. We have seen tremendous advances in biomaterials. The market potential for structural tissue engineering is between $90 and $100 billion, and for the biomaterials industry R&D growth spending is about 24% a year [16]. Recent

ENGINEERING FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A WORLD OF OPPORTUNITIES

35

advances and developments include: cornea tissue regeneration, artificial skin (e.g., Epicel manufactured by Genzyme Corp., Cambridge, MA), caticel implantation in the perosteal flap, and so on. Devices such as artificial heart valves (e.g., mitral valve), coronary stents, and particularly drug eluting stents have seen significant utilization for the benefit of society [2]. These developments are critically dependent on the advances that have been made, and continue to be made in materials science and engineering. Implantable medical devices have seen a huge growth during the last decade. Hip joints, artificial knees, spinal cord fusion devices, and many other parts are now being replaced, on almost routine basis. Thus in the last two decades alone we have witnessed medical advances that have profoundly improved quality of life; the unfortunate part is that many parts of the globe can neither afford these advances nor do they have access to such medical services. In the future, we will see major developments in the area of surface modification of biomaterials to better control blood and tissue compatibility; biomaterials can be modified by plasma treatment or by chemical grafting [17]. Through surface modification, we will be able to manipulate material attributes such as resistance to infection, resistance to clot formation, lubricity and wear resistance. A good example is how heparin (an anticoagulant) is covalently coupled to a multilayered base coat of a biomaterial surface [17]. Implants and devices that are also vehicles for drug delivery will be another area for future developments. Examples of such devices are steroid releasing pacing electrodes and drug eluting stents. Tissue engineering coupled with innovative materials for the manufacture of “smart” heart valves is another area for growth and opportunities for future developments. The whole field of biomaterials for regenerative medicine is a fertile area; S.I. Stupp [18] has recently reviewed these opportunities and cites many examples for the use of biomaterials for regenerative medicine. One example is how we might use biomaterials to regenerate insulin-producing cells of the pancreas from stem cells. In order to create the necessary bioactive architectures, supramolecular chemistry and self-assembly of atoms will be critical for the development of regenerative medicine. In brief, biomaterials of the future will not solely serve mechanical functions; rather they will be regulators of biological activity. In the future, we will see major advances in bioorganic–inorganic composites; at present, bioerodable polyanhydrides are being synthesized as vehicles to release large as well as small molecules. In the future, we will see this field blossoming to carry out “local chemotherapy” [19]. Langer has pioneered the field of drug release systems; he and his colleagues developed controlled release of large molecules (e.g., polypeptide) by using microspheres made of hydrophobic polymers [19]. The approach of synthesis and application of bioerodable polymers for implantable tissue scaffolds will be used to create

36

ENGINEERS: LEADERS, INNOVATORS, AND BUILDERS

liver tissue, blood vessels, nerves, and heart muscle [20]. R.M. Bergman of Medtronic Inc. sees that in the future “InfoTech plus Biotech will transform health care” [17]. Fusion of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and neural networks will allow us to not only prevent but also cure disease. The difficult issues we will face in the future are not technological ones, but rather ethical ones. Imagine what will be the consequence of being able to know the prognosis for disease and especially a life-threatening disease in a newborn. How will insurance companies assess risk and how will society cope with these issues? The future is bright for medical advances as a result of the developments in engineering; what we have seen in the recent past is only the beginning. The difficult questions will be societal ones: will health care only benefit those that can afford it? How do we cope with inequalities across the globe? Lastly, we will need to address the ethical issues that will arise by knowing a priori a person’s propensity for disease and poor health. Thus the importance of the engineer’s role as a social scientist!

3.5 CONCLUDING COMMENTS It is unthinkable that our society can remain competitive and that we can sustain the present standard of living without a large number of people with the knowledge and know-how to innovate. This is a plea to all engineering educators. We need everyone’s ingenuity to reach out and to make the case as to why engineering education is a compelling journey, and that the career paths engineers have are exciting, diverse, and certainly lead to satisfying lives. We should focus on the positives and the attributes that speak to the next generation of students; namely: making a world of difference through engineering! This is in contrast to the old adage that “engineering is difficult, and that you must be excellent in math and sciences.” This is akin to “selling” the field of medicine by focusing on how many loans one would incur, how long the journey is, and how little sleep one would get throughout med school. Let us make the case for engineering by linking the profession to societal issues, and that engineering is an enabling profession. In the early days of our nation’s birth, Noah Webster claimed that democracy succeeds and prevails only if the people have economic and educational hope, and that these two are closely interlinked. To educate engineers ready to face the challenges of tomorrow we must appreciate how profoundly the world has changed from just a few decades ago. Moreover, we need to embrace these changes and move ahead to ensure that the engineering profession is a social enterprise.

REFERENCES

37

We need to educate engineers that are more akin to the French Polytechnicien model: engineers that understand the societal context of their work, have an understanding of the human dimension around the globe, coupled with innovation and creativity. The challenge for us is daunting, both in academia as well as in corporate America. But we have no choice, as we need the human talent to address these issues. The curricular innovations that we present in the second part of this book—Effective Practices—offer much hope as to how we can achieve these goals.

REFERENCES 1. R. King, Brunelleschi’s Dome. New York: Penguin, 2001. 2. D. Apelian, “Looking Beyond the Last Fifty Years: The Future of Materials Science and Engineering.” Journal of Metals, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 9–18, 2007. 3. B. McKibben, eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. New York: Times Books, 2010. 4. O. Morton, “Wanted: Green Engineers,” The Economist, p. 32, Nov. 13, 2009. 5. R.J. Noeth, T. Cruce and M.T. Harmston, Maintaining a Strong Engineering Workforce, Policy Report. ACT: 2003. Available: http://www.act.org/research/ policymakers/pdf/engineer.pdf. 6. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) “PISA 2009 Results.” OECD: 2010. Available: http://www.oecd.org/edu/pisa.2009 7. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering, 2008. 8. M.S. Dresselhaus, G.W. Crabtree and M.V. Buchanan, “Addressing Energy Challenges Through Advanced Materials,” MRS Bulletin, vol. 30, pp. 518–524, July 2005. 9. “Green Dreams,” The Economist, p. 13, Nov. 16, 2006. Available: http://www. economist.com/node/8173054. 10. “Tekesin Ohjelmat.” Tekes: 2010. Available: http://www.tekes.fi/ohjelmat/. 11. B. Niesing, “Storing Heat with Wax,” Fraunhofer Magazine, Adaptronics: Bringing Materials to Life, no. 1, 2004. 12. D.B. Spencer, wTe Corporation, Bedford, MA (corporate information). 13. R.B. Gordon, M. Bertram and T.E. Graedel, “Metal Stocks and Sustainability” PNAS, vol. 103, no. 5, Jan. 31, 2006. Available: http://www.mindfully.org/ Sustainability/2006/Metal-Stocks-Gordon31jan06.htm. 14. Waste Online “Metals—Aluminium and Steel Recycling,” Sept. 2005. Available: http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/metals.htm. 15. ERCo: Energy Research Company, 2010. Available: http://er-co.com/. 16. A. Courey, Genzyme Corporation, as presented at the MS&T lecture on Technology and Society, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 2004.

38

ENGINEERS: LEADERS, INNOVATORS, AND BUILDERS

17. R.M. Bergman, “Innovations in Biomaterials: Achievements and Opportunities,” MRS Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 540–545, July 2005. 18. S.I. Stupp, “Biomaterials for Regenerative Medicine,” MRS Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 546–553, July 2005. 19. “Materials Researchers Strut Their Stuff at the 2005 MRS Fall Meeting,” MRS Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 232–256, March 2006. 20. N.A. Peppas, “Intelligent Biomaterials as Pharmaceutical Carriers in Microfabricated and Nanoscale Devices,” MRS Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 888–893, 2006.

CHAPTER 4

HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT DENNIS D. BERKEY

4.1 INTRODUCTION As in many of the engineering education programs founded in the nineteenth century, WPI’s curriculum from the outset emphasized both the mastery of relevant science and engineering principles. It was distinguished, however, by its additional requirement that students learn to engage in the actual production of useful tools and technologies. Indeed, WPI’s original two campus buildings dramatically reflected this duality: formal classroom instruction occurred in Boynton Hall, and students worked as apprentices to manufacture tools and technical devices in the neighboring Washburn shops. Both buildings were adorned by towers, which soon became symbols for the “two towers tradition” reflected in the Institute’s motto, Lehr und Kunst, commonly translated as “theory and practice.” These origins even contained roots for the present day controversy in higher education over the commercialization of the fruits of university labor. While the sale of products manufactured in the Washburn shops provided important revenue to the “Worcester County Free Institute of Industrial Science,” as WPI was originally known, some members of the faculty, and local merchants, regarded this production and sale of commercial product as inappropriate for a (nonprofit) educational institution—unfair to competing local merchants, or just unseemly. Others at the Institute argued that the marketplace provided an important test of the value of production, an important part of the students’ education and training, without which the lessons of the shop would be pointless.

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

39

40

HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT

This and other controversies that arose over WPI’s nearly 150 years of existence reflected its continuing bold commitment to educate young men, and eventually young women, for the whole of life’s opportunities, responsibilities, and challenges. Indeed, this aspiration was reflected in the original intentions of the Institute’s founding donor [1,p. 14]: The intention of the donor is to furnish competent instruction in such applications of science to the mechanical arts, manufacturing, and agriculture, as will fit young men to engage in those branches of active industry with intelligence; also to fit young men for mercantile life by a thorough course of training in the appropriate studies and to educate both young men andfemales for teachers, in a department adopted to that subject. —From a March 3, 1865 letter to 30 citizens of Worcester, Massachusetts

Hence was established, from its founding, WPI’s mission to produce graduates prepared for much more than to practice “the art of directing the great sources of power for the use and convenience of man,” per an early definition of engineering [2]. Through close supervision of their individual work by faculty deeply devoted to their full development as productive young adults, students of “Worcester Tech” were the beneficiaries of a type of mentorship that produced a maturity of outlook, an appreciation for the value and fruits of “smart” and hard work, and what proved to be just the right preparation for leadership in the rising manufacturing industries of central Massachusetts in the century following the founding of this, the nation’s third oldest technological university. 4.2 THE WPI PLAN The legacy of this first 100 years of WPI’s distinctive approach to engineering and science education provided the context and substance for a radical reconsideration of its curriculum during the turbulent years of the late 1960s. The Golden Age of manufacturing in central Massachusetts was drawing to a close with the relocation of home offices, if not entire operations, of many of the nation’s premier corporations from Worcester to other regions of the country with lower costs of labor. The Viet Nam war was weighing heavily on the American psyche, and campuses across the country were in turmoil. WPI sensed both a need and an opportunity for a renewal of mission, purpose, and value in the education it was providing. The Soviet Union’s launch of the satellite Sputnik in 1957 had shocked the United States into realizing that its international lead in science and discovery was slipping rapidly. The resulting investment in the revitalization

THE WPI PLAN

41

of mathematics and science education swelled the ranks of traditional programs, even as they were being updated and reformed along largely conventional lines. Under the leadership of then-president Harry Purnell Storke, WPI reflected again on its distinctive heritage, as captured by author Mildred McClary Tymeson in her centennial volume, Two Towers: By the time of its Centennial observance [in 1965], the school had long been acknowledged a college of engineering and science . . . [but] at some edge of its educational program, the Institute has always maintained contact with the real work of the world. The school has prospered and languished according to the proportionate strength of this contact, and the steam of endless controversy produced by it has generated unbelievable energy for the professors. [1,p. 235]

This “steam of endless controversy” flowed in substantial amounts as the WPI faculty contemplated the next leap of both faith and innovation for its curriculum. The leap turned out, once again, to vault WPI well ahead of its time as the faculty focused on the question of outputs—how its graduates could demonstrate not only what they had learned but also, and more importantly, the value and purpose of that knowledge, and how to put it to work. This was a radical departure from the dominant focus at most colleges on inputs—scores on standardized entrance examinations (SAT, ACT), course grades and cumulative grade point averages, rank in class, and scores on GRE’s, LSAT’s, MCAT’s, and the like. The fundamental component of the WPI education was to become the project, in which students would work in teams to acquire and apply the knowledge required to solve a series of challenging problems. Students would demonstrate their mastery of the relevant scientific and engineering principles and their applications in both written and oral presentations of the results of their projects, and by passing daunting “competency examinations” administered to students individually by teams of faculty just prior to graduation. Courses would continue to be taught, but were no longer the stepping-stones to degrees. Rather, not unlike the library and the extensive availability of faculty for tutoring and advising, academic courses were regarded simply as set of resources for learning. The responsibility for learning was squarely on the student, not the teacher; the projects—with their practical requirements for teamwork, integration of knowledge, dealing with unscripted challenge, and goal orientation—provided a domain for a much higher order of learning than simple mastery of course content; and the faculty would now assume the roles of tutor, coach, mentor, and examiner to a much greater extent than simply that of lecturer.

42

HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT

These were the philosophical elements of what was to become known as “The WPI Plan,” which was (narrowly) adopted by the WPI faculty in 1970, and which has been further developed, modified, and extended almost continually in the ensuing 40 years. 4.3 THE QUALIFYING PROJECTS The three major projects required for degrees, aptly named “qualifying” projects, best reflected the new educational philosophy. Of these three, the “Interactive Qualifying Project,” or the “IQP,” stood at the heart of the new approach, and was the most radical departure from the traditional engineering curriculum. At the same time, it was and remains the best exemplar of the “holistic” approach of the WPI Plan. The IQP is undertaken at the intersection of technology and society, and involves the use of technological knowledge to solve a problem of societal importance. The problems are inherently interdisciplinary, complex, and important. Student teams, typically with four members, attack a problem that has been formulated in conjunction with a faculty advisor and researched in advance of the actual project work. Once on site, the team works to clarify the problem and the associated constraints, formulate a proposed solution, identify necessary resources, develop a work plan, set a schedule, collaborate on the implementation, meet the project deadline, and communicate the results both orally and in a written project report. Here, in the IQP, one finds the complete educational philosophy of the WPI Plan. The IQP is typically completed in the junior year, by which time students have mastered core knowledge in the fields related to their major and they have had experience working in teams on projects within various of their courses. They now come together across disciplines, with project teams involving students from different majors, to collaborate in the application of what they know—and what they need quickly to learn—to draw on their own and each other’s abilities to integrate, synthesize, and apply their intellectual abilities, work ethics, and innovative instincts to accomplish a result that creates value in the form of a result that makes a piece of society better for their efforts. During the third and fourth decades of the WPI Plan’s existence it has become increasingly common for these IQP projects to be undertaken at one of WPI’s many off-campus project sites, both across the United States and literally around the world. Indeed, the Institute has formalized what it calls the “Global Perspective Program,” within its Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division, to support the majority of IQP projects that are completed off campus, with approximately half of

THE QUALIFYING PROJECTS

43

all IQP projects now being completed at more than 20 international WPI project sites. The experiences of students who complete IQP projects at international projects sites are quite different, and we believe much richer, than the more traditional study-abroad programs are able to provide. Whether working to mitigate the effect of motorized vessels on the canals of Venice, creating a capability for the simple washing of clothing in a shanty village outside Capetown, South Africa, or developing an irrigation system for farmers in rural Thailand, students on WPI’s IQP project teams experience the cultural, social, economic, and language differences and similarities between themselves and individuals living in very different contexts in the world. Not surprisingly, the frequent result of these experiences is not only a technological achievement but also a deep and rewarding dive into many aspects of the world’s great diversity, assets, and challenges. One key to the success of the IQP projects, especially those done abroad, is WPI’s unique academic calendar in which the academic year is organized into four 7-week “terms.” The nominal course load is three courses per term. This relatively smaller number of courses per term allows them to be taught more intensely over a briefer period than in the traditional semester (a feature very popular with students) and greatly facilitates the off-site projects, for which students are away from the campus for shorter periods than is the case for more traditional “study abroad” programs.

44

HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT

The “Major Qualifying Project,” or “MQP,” is not entirely unlike capstone projects required of college seniors in their major field of concentration. The MQP is distinguished by the fact that it is commonly done in teams, and quite often with the sponsorship of, and in collaboration with, a corporate partner. A typical approach is for a faculty advisor, who maintains a research relationship with a corporate sponsor, to collaborate with that sponsor to identify a problem suitable for completion by a project team devoting, as is the case with the IQP project, the equivalent of one-quarter of an entire academic year of work (i.e., the equivalent of three academic courses). Unlike the IQP, which is typically completed in a single 7- or 8week “term,” work on MQP projects is often spread over larger portions of the senior year. In its work to transform the teaching of engineering and science, the WPI faculty brought the same philosophy to the role of the humanities and arts in the WPI curriculum. The original notion, which persisted for 35 years, was that students would complete a qualifying project in this part of the curriculum as well, but one of a considerably different nature. Here the idea was to encourage students to experience the different modes of learning in the various areas of the humanities and arts by enrolling in a set of five thematically related courses, which may or may not involve scientific or technological aspects, and then writing a major paper, called the “Sufficiency Project,” to demonstrate mastery of the related subject matter and to offer a novel perspective, integrating and synthesizing what they had learned in the experience of these courses and related academic work.

THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

45

The Sufficiency Project requirement produced many highly original, creative, and truly remarkable papers, and was a point of great pride for many WPI students. With enrollments growing, however, and each Sufficiency Project having to be individually advised, the burden on the humanities and arts faculty could not be sustained. Recently, the requirement was modified to replace the individually advised “projects” with a set of “inquiry seminars,” the themes of which are announced in advance and in which enrollment is limited to approximately a dozen students per seminar. While this change has reduced the variety of “culminating experiences” to the humanities and arts requirement, it has added the quality of collaborative consideration of interdisciplinary themes. And, as has always been the case, there remain the options for students to complete the humanities and arts requirement either by completing a project in the performing arts (primarily in the Theatre Arts Program) or by concentrating all coursework in a single foreign language (currently Spanish or German). Reference is now to the Humanities and Arts Requirement rather than the Sufficiency Project. Until recently, these three major collaborative requirements—the IQP, the MQP, and the Humanities and Arts Requirement—comprised the major distinctive elements of the WPI Plan and the primary means by which the WPI Plan promotes a deeply “holistic” approach to undergraduate education, by which we mean the attention paid to all aspects of human development, not just the mastery of certain subject matter. To these curriculum components WPI also adds a strong cocurricular program of student leadership development, a residential life program supportive of and integrated with the academic programs, a comprehensive wellness program, and a mandatory physical education requirement. Our Division III varsity athletics program fields highly competitive teams which are coached by professional as dedicated to the development of student athletes as whole individuals as are the member of the faculty and academic support staff. 4.4 THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS The most recent development within the WPI Plan, and one that speaks directly both to the holistic approach to student development and to the power of the WPI educational philosophy has been the introduction of the Great Problems Seminars (GPS) for first-year students. The GPS program was born of the conviction that the outstandingly gifted students who enter WPI ought to be confronted, immediately upon their arrival, with both the great challenges facing their generation and the enormous potential that they themselves have for making positive impacts on these problems. A related goal was to add to the

46

HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT

first year some experience working on projects and in project teams, which is the feature for which many students chose to enroll at WPI, rather than have the first year remain entirely devoted to basic coursework in science, mathematics, and the liberal arts. In a great flourish of educational innovation, the WPI faculty developed a set of four Great Problem Seminars, with titles fully descriptive of both the subject matter and the attitude in which the work would proceed: Healing the World, Feeding the World, Powering the World, and Grand Challenges. Typical of the creative and collaborative nature of the WPI faculty, the seminars are taught by interdisciplinary teams of faculty; students are organized into teams which complete projects under the general theme of the seminars. Students meet regularly both for common lectures and in smaller discussion sections; and the work of the projects involves both archival research and fieldwork. The two-term seminars culminate in presentations of project results by posters and in oral and written reports. It has been my personal observation that the quality of the poster presentations by these GPS freshmen are fully competitive with the presentations made by our IQP and MQP teams, and by many of our graduate students. In the GPS program, we have witnessed the confirmation of the great creative potential of our entering students, and celebrating again the next innovative step in the continuing evolution of the WPI Plan. 4.5 ON GRADES, DEAN’S LISTS, COMPETITION, AND COOPERATION Along with the formal transformation of the curriculum, the WPI Plan introduced a new attitude toward the assessment of students’ work and the purpose of course and project grades. The goal was for achievement at a high level by all students, not a weeding out process or the inordinate acclaim of nominal high achievers. Accordingly, evaluation of student work on the qualifying projects initially resulted only in a pass or a “not yet passing” outcome. Later, to encourage achievement at the highest possible level, the “pass with distinction” was added. Over the years, as various aspects of convention found their way into the WPI Plan, these results evolved into the present grading system of awarding only the letter grades A, B, C, and NR, the final (NR, standing for “no record”) indicating only that the course was not completed with a passing grade. The innovative use of the NR grade, reported to the student at the end of the term but not made part of the permanent record, was intended to encourage students to attempt difficult courses outside their “comfort zone.” Similarly,

THE HOLISTIC CONTINUUM

47

the calculation of grade point averages was abandoned, so as to eliminate the incentive to “game” the grading system, and a Dean’s list was not maintained until quite recently. Although these last two features make the evaluation of applications for graduate study by WPI students more difficult for some institutions to understand and evaluate (a difficulty overcome by the great willingness of WPI faculty advisors to write well-informed, extensive letters of recommendation), a great salutary effect was to deemphasize competition among students and instead to encourage cooperation. Indeed, WPI students carry such pride in this spirit of cooperation over competition that they strongly resisted a recent move by some faculty members to introduce the use of plus and minus modifiers to grades, specifically the Bþ and A  grades common on almost all college campuses. 4.6 THE HOLISTIC CONTINUUM In the 40 years of continuing development of the WPI Plan, the Institute has arrived at a model for higher education that is ideally suited for the needs of an economy that has progressed from agrarian to industrial to information and, now, to innovation [3]. The WPI student, through traditional coursework enhanced by varying degrees of project-based work, gains the core knowledge common to undergraduates in high-quality programs centered on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In parallel with this more common aspect of the curriculum, the WPI student is also engaged in a continuum of integrative experiences that requires deeper and broader intellectual ambition, a more active engagement with knowledge, and a developing ability to set and update goals for personal achievement. This continuum proceeds . . .

.

from the first-year Great Problems Seminars; to the Inquiry Seminars of the sophomore year, which “cap” the coursework in the humanities, arts, and social sciences; to the Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP), typically completed in the junior year, focusing on work at the intersection of technology and society; and finally to The Major Qualifying Project (MQP) of the senior year, integrating what has been learned in the major and related fields to the solution of a significant problem in the field, quite often on the site of, and under sponsorship from, a partner corporation.

The continuum is further enhanced by the Global Perspective Program, which provides opportunities at domestic and international project sites for the

48

HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT

majority of IQP projects, and also for the humanities and arts requirement (in London, for example, working at the Dickens Museum, or studying Islamic history and culture in Morocco) and for various MQP projects (including project centers in Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the financial district of London). And providing immersion in foreign cultures, these global opportunities provide valuable experience in both project management in unfamiliar settings and coordinating work across widely distributed locations. Finally, WPI faculty are working to further enhance the coherence and relevance of the WPI Plan by focusing on the roles of entrepreneurship and innovation in the preparation of graduates for rapidly evolving challenges of the national and global economies. Courses, course components, and a formal minor in entrepreneurship are available to all students, and are being integrated formally into many degree programs. More generally, the habits of mind associated with entrepreneurial and innovative approaches to challenges and opportunities of all types are becoming characteristic of the WPI approach to putting knowledge to work in unlimited and wonderful ways (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).

4.7 A FRAMEWORK FOR CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT During the nearly four decades that have elapsed since the WPI Plan was created it has, not surprisingly, been modified and improved in light of the experience with it. Nonetheless, the fundamental philosophy of the WPI Plan has remained firmly intact. It is remarkable how well aligned the 1970 conception of the WPI Plan anticipated the vision embodied in ABET’s Curriculum 2000 and, more recently, the NAE’s vision for the engineer of 2020 [4,5], placing “people skills” on par with technical skills and core scientific knowledge. This common vision is articulated explicitly in WPI’s current educational philosophy: The goals of the undergraduate program are to lead students to develop an excellent grasp of fundamental concepts in their principal areas of study; to lay a foundation for lifelong renewal of knowledge; to gain a mature understanding of themselves; and, most importantly, to form a deep appreciation of the interrelationships among basic knowledge, technological advance, and human need. [6]

Realizing that the higher education community has begun demanding more of itself in terms of the formulation of learning outcomes and the assessment of student learning, and to ensure its continuing success in

A FRAMEWORK FOR CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT

49

WPI Academic Requirements General Education 4 Units

Academic Major 10 Units

Great Problem Seminars Humanities and Arts Inquiry sem. Social Sciences Physical Ed Any course taught at WPI

Junior Project (IQP)

Free Electives 1Unit

Mathematic and Basic Sciences (as required by ABET)

Engineering Science ad Design (as required by ABET)

Solidlines show major project experiences. The dashed line designates the Great Problem Seminars which usually bridge humanities and the sciences

Senior Project (MQP)

4 Units = 1 Year

The academic requirements are stated in Units, equal to one quarter of academic work. The requirement consists of three major components: • General Education includes two units of humanities and arts, two–third units social sciences, one–third unit physical education, and a one unit junior project (the IQP). • The Major consists often units, including a year of mathematics and sciences and a year and a half of engineering science and design, including a one unit senior project (the MQP). • One unit of free electives. The IQP & MQP are major projects usually conducted in teams and often done off campus

FIGURE 4.1 WPI academic requirements.

further developing the WPI Plan, the WPI faculty took the time to reflect on the principles and values that have guided and evolution of the WPI Plan thus far. The result of these deliberations was the formulation of the following learning outcomes, which now serve as touchstones for their continuing work.

50

HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT

The WPI Academic Calendar

Course 3

Course 2

Spring Mid January

Course 1

Fall Late August

Break—mid October

Off-Campus one-term project

Break—early March

Mid December

Course 9

Course 8

Course 7

Course 6

Course 5

Course 4

Seven week terms

Late April

The academic year is divided into four 7–week long terms. In each term the students generally enrol in three intensive courses. The major projects, the IQP and the MQP, require one term of work. The projects can be spread over several terms and taken along with regular courses or they can be completed in one term, as shown above. This isusually the case for off-campus projects.

FIGURE 4.2 WPI’s academic calendar.

WPI’s Undergraduate Learning Outcomes specify that graduates of WPI will: (1) have a base of knowledge in mathematics, science, and humanistic studies; (2) have mastered fundamental concepts and methods in their principal areas of study; (3) understand and employ current technological tools; (4) be effective in oral, written, and visual communication; (5) function effectively both individually and in teams; (6) Be able to identify, analyze, and solve problems creatively through sustained critical investigation; (7) Be able to make connections between disciplines and to integrate information from multiple sources; (8) Be aware of how their decisions affect and are affected by other individuals separated by time, space, and culture;

REFERENCES

51

(9) Be aware of personal, societal, and professional ethical standards; and (10) Have the skills, diligence, and commitment to excellence needed to engage in lifelong learning. The various aspects of the WPI curriculum are discussed in depth in this book. The projects are, in particular, examined in Chapters 5–8 and in the last chapter the many lessons that the faculty have learned are reviewed. Because the WPI program is unconventional it often seems confusing and hard to understand to those not familiar with it. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are intended to assist the reader of this and other chapters of the book. The WPI academic year is shown in Figure 4.1, where it is assumed that student is off campus for the January to March term. Figure 4.2 is an overview of the WPI academic requirements, for a student receiving a BS degree in engineering. 4.8 SUMMARY The result of the introduction of the WPI Plan in 1970, together with all of the ensuing modifications, has been a learning environment emphasizing cooperation and collaboration among students and faculty; students’ ability to work collaboratively in teams, to deal with ambiguity, and to integrate knowledge across disciplines; and the application of knowledge to productive, important ends. The plan has been enhanced by the addition of a comprehensive Global Perspective Program, providing unusual opportunities for meaningful work in foreign project sites, and it has been further enriched by a pervasive spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation. Of necessity, this environment has required a more active approach to mastering the “core knowledge” needed in the analysis and solution of problems, as well the development of strong interpersonal, writing, and presentation skills. It is truly a rich, comprehensive example of the best of what is meant by the term “holistic education” [7,8]. REFERENCES 1. M.M. Tymeson, Two Towers: The Story of Worcester Tech 1865–1965, Worcester, MA: Polytechnic Institute, 1965, Available: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/ Library/Archives/TwoTowers/. 2. T. Tredgold, 1818, in charter of Institute of Civil Engineering in Great Britain, as cited in [1]. 3. C. Carlson and W. Wilmot, Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want. New York: Crown Business, 2006.

52

HOLISTIC EDUCATION: LEARNING AND DOING IN CONTEXT

4. National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004. 5. National Academy of Engineering, Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005. 6. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “About the University: Mission and Goals,” Endorsed 1987. Available 2009: http://www.wpi.edu/about/statements.html. 7. D. Grasso and D. Martinelli, “Holistic Engineering,” The Chronicle Review, March 16, 2007. 8. D. Grasso and M. B. Burkins (eds.), Holistic Engineering Education: Beyond Technology. New York: Springer, 2010.

PART II

EFFECTIVE PRACTICES

CHAPTER 5

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS ARTHUR C. HEINRICHER and KRISTIN WOBBE

5.1 INTRODUCTION Educational innovation has been a topical subject for many decades, and much has been discussed so far regarding the WPI Plan, which was first conceived in the late 1960s and put into practice in the 1970s. But not everything in the current WPI program was born 40 years ago; the Plan has evolved and changed over the past 40 years. This particular chapter is about the most recent step in the evolution of the WPI Plan. The strength of the Plan has been and remains to be its focus on project works in the junior (the IQP) and senior (the MQP) years. This focus on project work at the upper levels changes the way that students think about their educational goals. The Plan places student responsibility for learning and teamwork at the heart of their education. While this focus has changed the way that courses are taught in the final years of study, many and perhaps most courses available to students in the first year remained quite traditional. The first-year curriculum has been based on the theory that students needed to “cover” the basics before they could begin the practice in project work. The first year at WPI was still dominated by what some have called “just-incase learning” [1]. This changed in 2007 when the WPI faculty piloted new options for firstyear students defined by the most important challenges facing humanity in the twenty-first century. The “Great Problems Seminars” (GPS) are learning experiences that focus on real problems and in this they differ from the introductory courses that cover disciplinary content. The Great Problems Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

55

56

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

Seminars are defined not by discipline or department but by the important problems they tackle. Four different Great Problems Seminars1 have been offered at WPI, with more than 450 students participating in the first three years of the program. The first four themes were as follows: . . . .

Feed the World (all about food) Power the World (all about energy) Heal the World (all about disease) Grand Challenges (all about all of the above . . . and more)

Each theme has been developed and delivered by a pair of faculty from very different disciplines, one from science or engineering and one from humanities or management. It is important to note that the “nonengineer” or “nonscientist” is an equal partner in the teaching pair; the clear message of which is that technical knowledge alone will never adequately address society’s most pressing problems. The first half of each course is devoted to an exploration of various dimensions of the problem: its history, scale, and depth. In the second half of the course, students form teams and focus on a major project of their choice exploring some aspects or possible solutions to the problem. The students choose a project that they really care about. We had high expectations for the Great Problems Seminars, hoping that they could address important learning goals in the first year and make a significant impact on student engagement. Early assessment has shown that the seminars achieved and exceeded the key goals we set for them, but they went a lot further than that and have had positive impacts in areas of student learning and growth that we had not hoped for or imagined. The faculty members involved in the seminars have described this very high level of student engagement as empowerment. Students and faculty have commented on a growth in student capacity for leadership that we did not include in the design. Students have explained that the opportunity to work on a significant project in the first year, without the high stakes associated with the major projects in the junior and senior year, has greatly increased their confidence in their own abilities. The quality of student work has exceeded expectations, eliminating initial concerns that first-year students would not have the background sufficient to begin realistic work on any of the problems.

1

The pilot was supported by a generous gift from the Eric Hahn Family Foundation.

BACKGROUND: THE GAP TO BRIDGE

57

One first-year student captured the experience of the Great Problems Seminars very well, “It is what happens in REAL LIFE . . . there is no substitute.”

5.2 BACKGROUND: THE GAP TO BRIDGE Almost 40 years ago, WPI completely restructured its curriculum to incorporate significant project work, not only within the major but also exploring problems at the intersection of science and engineering with societal needs. At that time, the WPI Plan elaborated not only a creative, adventurous, demanding program in terms of what students would do but also in terms of the curriculum they would cover. Prospective students are attracted to WPI by the excitement and challenge of project work. They hear about the work that WPI students complete in their major (see Chapter 10). They read about students traveling around the world to work on real problems for external sponsors (see Chapter 9 and [2]). Until 2007, they arrived on campus to find themselves in fairly traditional classes designed to cover fundamental math, science, and engineering in a fairly traditional way. The Plan had largely passed over the first year. One WPI faculty task force decried the “relative passivity” of first-year coursework. While the first year was definitely challenging for many students, it was not engaging. First-year courses were at best a pill that had to be swallowed and at worst a barrier that blocked the path to exciting learning. While WPI faculty and students felt the disconnection between the firstyear experience and the excitement of project work, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) provided a quantitative measure of the gap. (See [3] and [4] for background on the survey and [5] for information on WPI’s experience.) First-year students at WPI reported that they were less academically engaged than similar students at peer institutions. WPI’s NSSE composite score for Level of Academic Challenge in the first year was below the same score for WPI’s peer group in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2006 (no data for 2004 and 2005). The same composite score for the senior year was well above the peer scores for the same period. First-year students at WPI reported working less outside of class than students at peer institutions, with less experience in writing than first-year students at peer institutions. Once again, the statistics are reversed in the senior year, with WPI seniors reporting working more hours and having significantly more experience in writing than students at peer institutions. These results quantified the gap between the first-year experience and the WPI’s fundamental mission. We had set high expectations and failed to achieve them. While faculty and staff at WPI had been concerned about the

58

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

first-year experience for almost 10 years and had piloted and institutionalized several important initiatives, the gap remained.

5.3 BACKGROUND: A WIDER VIEW The focus on the first year as critical to both attracting and retaining engineering majors is neither new nor special to WPI. In the 1990s the NSF-sponsored Engineering Educations Coalitions [6,7] brought together 44 colleges and universities in six regions to spark fundamental changes in engineering education. For example, Drexel University designed a highly integrated first-year curriculum for engineering students [8,9]. Hagenberger et al. [10] describe a similar program at Valparaiso University. See [11] for the description of a first-year course at Wright State University that introduces key mathematical models for engineering applications before students have the complete mathematical background needed to derive or to analyze the models. WPI also has done work to use project work to bridge introductory courses [12–14]. Even with this list of innovations, most faculty members would say that engineering education in the first year has not changed much in 40 years. Most reform efforts have treated existing courses as given, and existing disciplines as sacred. Innovations that worked well for small groups or with external funding were not scalable or sustainable when the funding went away. For example, some faculty members who participated in the Engineering Education Coalitions have said that the programs have not brought about the substantial and sought-after changes to the engineering education at WPI [15]. In 1997, the Olin Foundation made a strong statement when it decided not to support incremental changes in existing engineering programs but instead to fund the creation of the completely new Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering. The Olin curriculum was built from the ground up, with a design experience in the first semester and project work as a significant and increasing fraction of each academic year, and with an emphasis on entrepreneurship [16,17]. The National Academy of Engineering is working to change the image of engineering, both as a profession and an educational endeavor, by focusing on the most important problems facing humanity in the twenty-first century, with the development of the Grand Challenges2 (as well as the Grand Challenges Scholars) Program. The National Academy of Engineering Grand Challenge Scholars program is a combined curricular and extracurricular program with five components that are designed to prepare students to be the generation that 2

http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/ and http://www.grandchallengescholars.org/.

BACKGROUND: A WIDER VIEW

59

solves the grand challenges facing society in this century. The five components of the Grand Challenge Scholars Program include the following: research experience; interdisciplinary curriculum; entrepreneurship; global dimension; and service learning. The focus on the first year in college as a critical transition point has become a national priority, for many years, and not just in science and engineering. The National Resource Center for the First-Year ExperienceÒ and Students in Transition3 organized its 22nd International Conference on the first-year experience in 2009. The center is a rich source of research on the first-year experience movement, but a great deal of this research focuses on programs that prepare students for college [18–20]. The problems they address are huge: too many students finish high school without the basic study skills or fundamental knowledge necessary for success in college. Faculty and staff from the University of South Carolina presented a workshop in 2008 on their First-Year Seminar programs. Twenty years of hard work have provided valuable lessons and helped faculty and staff at the University of South Carolina develop a highly successful program. The FY seminars are not required, but the university still has better than 80% participation from the first-year students. It is interesting to note that when asked who were the students that chose not to participate, the FY faculty and staff pointed to the “science and engineering majors.” One implication of this is that a school that focuses almost entirely on science and engineering needs a different kind of the first-year seminar. There are many other examples of successful first-year programs in nonengineering areas. For example, two other colleges in Massachusetts have innovative first-year programs organized around research themes, with an optional yearlong “Diving into Research” course.4 The College of the Holy Cross has had an interdisciplinary first-year seminar series with a new theme each year5 since 1992. (The Holy Cross program was expanded to serve the entire first-year class in 2006.) Another example of a successful first-year program is the College of Arts and Sciences Core Curriculum at Boston University.6 The focus at BU is on raising the enduring questions of a liberal arts education, which is the same point of inquiry that led to the creation of the Core Curriculum at Columbia College in 1919 [21].

3 4 5 6

http://sc.edu/fye/. https://www.clarku.edu/classof2013/academics/fys.cfm. http://www.holycross.edu/departments/FYP/website/theme.html. http://www.bu.edu/core.

60

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

5.4 THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS: DESIGN CRITERIA The faculty who worked to develop the first Great Problem Seminars kept three design criteria in mind as they worked. The course should: (1) start with a great problem; (2) include a self-selected major project performed by a small group of students; and (3) require more writing and communication than traditional disciplinebased courses. The third criterion places an emphasis on fostering perhaps the most palpably useful skill. Many authors have argued that an increased emphasis on writing as a skill is critical for the engineer of the twenty-first century [22–25]. WPI faculty have found that students are not always well prepared for the level of writing required in major projects in the junior and senior years. NSSE uses student writing as one of the measure of engagement and defines it as an academic challenge of the program. Research in the learning sciences [26] has also shown that students learn best when they articulate their developing understanding. Writing and presenting are valuable professional skills that are also instrumental in deep learning. The second criterion ties the first year experience directly to the goals of the WPI Plan. The emphasis on teamwork (and close work with a project advisor) is the key to the IQP and in many cases to the MQP. This also helps build the academic and social support network that is a component of success in college. The first criterion is by far the most important, and has had the most surprising impacts on WPI students. The focus on the great problem was meant to serve as a point of motivation; it stimulates and channels the work of students. It taps the energy that the first-year students bring to college; they expect the university to be something different from high school. It gives the students a framework to justify all of their other educational efforts. Because of this, students in the GPS have not asked and are not likely to ask their instructors this question, “Why are we studying this?” There is another, surprising effect of this educational initiative. The students have less fear of failure at this level and in these seminars and are more willing to take risks. The GPS project does not carry the same weight as the IQP and MQP (both being graduation requirements). The students have not had all of the background courses in the theory needed to find a solution. They are able to learn as they go, capturing what they need to learn to make progress on the project, and realizing why the disciplinary courses in mathematics, chemistry, physics, economics, history, and rhetoric could be useful to them in the end.

GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS: THE CURRICULUM DETAILS

61

5.5 GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS: THE CURRICULUM DETAILS The Great Problems Seminars do not replace any existing course, but they do require some space in the curriculum, one sixth of a WPI student’s first year to be exact. Each of the GPS is equal to two courses, with an elective credit in an appropriate department (in the early stages, we needed a way to fit this square peg into a round distribution requirement hole). The seminars, in other words, were structured very differently from typical WPI courses (Table 5.1). The most important part of each GPS is the major project. However, before we set first-year students on that course, the students need some guidance and preparation. In the first half of the course substantial time is given to presenting the problem(s) to students from multiple perspectives, requiring reading, writing, problem solving, and frequent presentations. The readings come from nontraditional sources; everything from Barbara Kingsolver’s Animal, Vegetable, Miracle to McDonough and Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle, with articles from The Economist, Scientific American, and the Boston Globe thrown in to keep the discussion current and relevant (See [27–31].). The faculty has identified a few key components in the structure of the GPS: the kick-off lecture, the faculty team, the adventure assignments, and the major project. 5.5.1 The Kick-Off Lecture We initiate the Great Problems Seminars with a kick-off lecture by a prominent individual working on one of the great problems of the seminars. All students enrolled in any of the GPS courses are expected to attend, and the greater campus community is also invited. This lecture provides a broad perspective on the problem for the students, and in addition, shows them that these are indeed significant problems that have become the life work of highly regarded and talented individuals. The speakers have also visited the GPS classroom and had discussions with small groups of students. Alfred W. Crosby, the inaugural speaker, a highly respected historian and author TABLE 5.1 Special Features of the GPS 1. Seminar is twice as long as a typical course (14 versus 7 weeks) 2. Seminar is led by two instructors from different departments 3. Students receive the equivalent of two courses of credit 4. The credit is given in two different disciplinary areas 5. Second half of the seminar devoted primarily to project work

62

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

of one of the required texts for Power the World, Children of the Sun [32], met with students in Power the World on their first day of class. The students pressed Professor Crosby to give them “the answer” to the world’s future energy needs. He responded with a smile, saying “I’m an historian. The future is your problem!” This exchange set the tone for the entire course. Doctor David Ho, a key scientist on the team that developed the triple drug cocktail that is still the standard treatment for AIDS, gave the second kick-off lecture on the state of HIV/AIDS research. His presentation blended the challenges facing researchers as well as policy makers and described the passion that drives his work. Doctor Ho also spent most of the day meeting with small groups of first-year students. More than one student was moved by the fact that a world-famous researcher would spend time talking with them (and not at them). 5.5.2 The Faculty Team We have found that the students appreciate having both faculty members present during at least part of the course. They enjoy the dialog between the faculty, and this dialog provides an example of intellectual discourse that is otherwise unavailable in a typical lecture course. We also realized that the faculty team models another very important behavior when leading a discussion in an area where neither instructor is an expert. The faculty members approach the great problems as learners and take a very public risk in stepping out before a class not as experts but as intelligent investigators struggling to make sense of an important problem. The students are asked to take the same kind of risk in their learning. 5.5.3 Adventure Assignments Some assignments in the first term involved experiential learning in a group setting. For example, in Feed the World, the students were each required to spend an hour in the dish line at the student dining hall, collecting and weighing all the food (solid and liquid) that was uneaten. After two full days of collecting wasted food, the data were aggregated and presented in a class discussion. The students were then required to write and send a letter to some stakeholder in the dining process (food service, campus newspaper, student government, administration) that detailed the findings and suggested some remedy. In Heal the World, the students participated in simulated epidemics, modeling the black plague and cholera in the Middle Ages. Students in their role as traveling merchants or pilgrims were required to write postcards to friends and family back home detailing their experience. These assignments proved to have a much larger impact on the student understanding and

GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS: THE CURRICULUM DETAILS

63

appreciation of the situation than if they had simply studied the public health statistics. 5.5.4 The Major Project The major objective of the course is to complete a team project that occupies students in the second half of the course. Students work with the faculty advisor to arrive at a suitable project topic and design. In this process, faculty members serve in an advisory capacity only—allowing student choices and decisions to lead them to greater ownership of the project. First-year students frequently need assistance in paring a topic down to a manageable slice. For instance, initial ideas for the project might be “depletion of fish stocks.” Discussion with faculty will help students to arrive at a more manageable topic such as “Depletion of fish stocks in Lake Victoria, Africa.” In addition, FY students frequently need reminding that they are to provide a workable solution rather than settle on the problem description. The following are a few of the project titles from each of the seminars:7 Feed the World . . . . .

Preventing fertilizer run-off Method for preserving fishery yield in Chesapeake Bay Food stamp participation in Worcester Polyculture: an approach to sustainable farming What’s for lunch?

Power the World . . . . .

Combating misconceptions about nuclear power Feasibility study of photovoltaic systems at WPI The cost of green roofs versus conventional tar roofs Consumer’s guide to wind turbines in Massachusetts Feasibility of geothermal power production in the US

Heal the World . . . . . 7

Noncompliance of tuberculosis treatment in India Preventing HIV and HPV: are the youth informed? Fight the cancer, not the treatment Inefficient delivery of health care Lassa virus prevention in West Africa

Posters for all of the GPS projects are available on the WPI web site at www.wpi.edu/þFYE.

64

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

Grand Challenges . . . . .

Malewa, Kenya—Clean Water Project Organic Waste Management at WPI Point Source Power Generation Using a Sterling Engine Remaking Recycling Bottle to Bottle

Once a suitable topic is developed, the team begins collecting data, formulating a problem statement, and looking for viable solutions. During this process, the project teams meet at least once a week with the faculty to discuss progress, team issues, and current development of the ideas. In some courses, the students are required to give preliminary presentations to the class on their research development and get feedback from both the faculty and their peers. All the seminars require as the final products of this work a written project report and a poster. Some seminars also require a formal presentation and/or development of some promotional material designed to persuade and inform a target audience. Global issues that the seminars raise can also serve as a launching pad for students’ academic and professional ambitions. Many students arrive at college with a nebulous desire to better the world. These courses can focus that desire, showing first-year students where their soon-to-be-gained skills can be put to great use. We have had students report to us that they are galvanized to make a difference and that the seminars have clarified to them where to best apply themselves toward this end: For the class project, my group was able to work with a non-government organization to develop a sustainable soap making and distribution process for the city of Malewa, Kenya. This project was a great opportunity; I have realized from this course that I want to work for non-government organizations to develop and introduce sustainable processes that will better the lives of those less privileged.

Other students have continued with their project after the course was over, hoping to bring their concept to fruition. For example, one group in the Grand Challenges seminar worked with a NGO to develop ideas for helping Malewa, Kenya, to solve the problem of limited clean water. At the end of the course, the team was making plans to fly to Africa, to see if they could participate in the implementation of the plan they had developed. Another group, in the Feed the World seminar, contacted the City of Worcester about expanding the Meals on Wheels program to individuals below the age of 65, because there is significant need for those among people who are not very mobile.

INITIAL ASSESSMENT

65

The culminating event of the course is a single large poster presentation for all the students in all the seminars. The whole of WPI community and the larger community beyond its walls are invited to attend. The posters are judged, and for each seminar a winner and a runner-up are selected. While the prizes are appreciated, the students are more excited by the opportunity to show their work, of which they are deservedly proud, to their peers, their other instructors, and to the influential members of both the WPI and larger community. The presentations are judged, which adds an important level of professionalism to the day, but the real purpose is the celebration of student achievements. The students and the audience have been amazed by what the first-year students could accomplish in just one semester at college. 5.6 INITIAL ASSESSMENT Over 110 students enrolled in the 2007 GPS courses (out of a first-year class of about 800 students) and more than 200 enrolled in 2008 (out of a first-year class of about 900 students). Two themes to explore were offered

66

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

TABLE 5.2 Gender Distribution for GPS 2008

Female Male

Feed the World 47.83%

Heal the World 64.44%

52.17%

Grand Challenges

35.56%

Power the World

GPS Students

Class of 2012

24.07%

21.13%

35.23%

29.00%

75.93%

78.87%

64.77%

71.00%

in 2007 and four themes were offered in 2008. The GPS are not required offerings and so interesting patterns emerged among incoming students elected to participate. For example, the distribution for 2008 is given in Table 5.2. First, the percentage of female students in the GPS is slightly larger than their percentage in the Class of 2012, but the distribution is clearly not uniform. In two themes, Grand Challenges and Power the World males are slightly overrepresented. In the other two themes, Feed the World and Heal the World female students are greatly overrepresented relative to the class as a whole. The distribution of majors for the themes also reflects a selection preference by major (Table 5.3). Undecided students are slightly overrepresented in the GPS, perhaps because these students feel free to explore in their first year. Engineers (including Mechanical, Electrical and Computer, Chemical, and Civil and Environmental engineers) are overrepresented in Grand Challenges and Power the World mirroring the gender balance described above. Engineering has lower than expected representation in Feed the World and Heal the World while the Math and Science group (which includes Computer Science, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematical Sciences, Physics, and Biomedical Engineering) is greatly overrepresented in Feed the World and Heal the World, again mirroring the gender balance in Table 5.2. These major distributions are perhaps not totally unexpected due to the credit assigned to these courses. Both Power the World, and Grand Challenges provide credit that aligns well with TABLE 5.3 Major Groups for GPS 2008 Major Group

Feed the Heal the Grand Power the GPS Class of World World World Challenges Students 2012

Engineering

21.74%

6.67%

48.15%

42.25%

33.16%

38%

Math and Science

43.48%

60.00%

12.96%

25.35%

32.12%

29%

HUA & Management Undecided

0.00%

13.33%

7.41%

1.41%

5.70%

8%

34.78%

20.00%

31.48%

30.99%

29.02%

25%

67

INITIAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE 5.4 Student Course Reports AB2008

My overall rating of the quality of this course is My overall rating of the instructor’s teaching is The amount I learned in this course was

University

FTW

PTW

GC

HTW

Mean

4.62 4.95 4.68

4.20 4.36 4.11

4.67 4.55 4.55

4.34 4.45 3.89

4.05 4.05 3.83

the demands of the engineering majors (Physics and Engineering Science, respectively), while Feed the World and Heal the World offer science credits (Chemistry and Biology, respectively). There is also some anecdotal evidence to suggest who elected to leave the seminars at the midpoint, keeping one course credit for the first term. In the first year, the number who elected to drop at the midpoint was small (6.3%). The most common explanations for leaving were the lack of structure (the feeling that students did not know where the course was going), the high workload, and the quantity of required writing. In general, the students who left were not students who had difficulty with the academic work. Indeed, some were the brightest students in the class. The GPS may be more successful at, in the words of Sheila Tobias [33], “stalking the second tier.” It seemed that those who left early were the students who had learned to succeed by a certain set of rules, who were comfortable with this set of rules, and who wished to return to that comfort zone where problems were clear and unambiguous. They used only the tools familiar to them and sought answers in the back of the book to set the standard for their work. GPS faculty participated in the same course evaluations administered in all undergraduate courses. Table 5.4 shows that evaluations for all four themes were well above the university mean for some key questions on the surveys. It is worth noting, that it is generally not unusual for first year courses to score below the university mean. In addition, each of the teaching teams developed assessment tools tailored to their particular course. For example, Feed the World students were asked to rate how much the course helped them to develop a number of skills: writing, speaking, presentation preparation, and teamwork. The results are found in Table 5.5. Getting objective assessment of that improvement is very difficult, but the participating faculty felt that the students, particularly in presentation skills, showed dramatic improvement toward the end of the experience over where they started. Another piece of anecdotal evidence to support the success of the GPS comes from instructors who have had these students in subsequent courses. According to these faculty members, the GPS students are noteworthy

68

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

TABLE 5.5 Self-Reported Skill Development To What Extent has This Class Helped Your Writing skills Speaking skills Presentation preparation skills Teamworking skills

Not at All (%)

Somewhat (%)

Quite a Bit (%)

A Great Deal (%)

0 9 0 0

36 5 14 14

41 36 9 14

23 50 77 73

for their writing, critical thinking ability, asking good questions, and willingness to be class leaders.

5.7 EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT To establish a mechanism for proper assessment of the GPS initiative, WPI developed and implemented an assessment plan in collaboration with the Research & Evaluation Group at the UMass Donahue Institute. The assessment plan included pre- and postsurveys administered to all first-year students in the first year of the pilot, focus group interviews with students and faculty in the spring of 2008 (after the completion of the first year of the program), focus group interviews with students and faculty who participated in the GPS in fall 2008 (completed in the spring of 2009), and one more focus group interview with GPS alumni one year after they had completed the program. In 2007, when Feed the World and Power the World were offered for the first time, pre- and postsurveys were distributed to all first-year students. Compared to non-GPS students, as surveys showed, the GPS students experienced their first year in college with a higher levels (statistically significant difference) of engagement in several important areas, including: . . . .

working effectively in teams; developing a greater understanding of contemporary and global issues; solving complex real-world problems; and presenting and defending opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas, or quality of work based on a set of criteria.

5.7.1 Focus Group for GPS 2007: Formative Assessment Focus groups completed in the spring after the first offering of the GPS clearly identified the project work as the most valuable component of the program. Students also expressed some dissatisfaction with the course. While reasons

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT

69

for dissatisfaction differed across seminars, issues that were common to both seminars are identified here: . . .

students desired more structure and more cohesiveness than the seminars provided; B-term experiences tended to be more valuable to students than A-term experiences; and students desired more work related to current events.

Thus, in the first year of the program, student expectations and desires did not fully correspond to faculty expectations and approaches.

5.7.2 Focus Group for GPS 2007: One Year Later The assessment consultant followed up with interviews of students from the first year of the GPS to identify the impact of GPS on their second year at WPI. While there was serious criticism of the GPS after the first offering, the consultant reported that there was “not a single negative comment” when the same students were interviewed one year later. To an overwhelming extent, the 2007 GPS alumni believed that GPS did an excellent job at exposing them to the project-intensive environment of WPI, that because of GPS they were perceived as valuable assets by current employers and as very strong candidates by potential employers, and that through GPS they had learned how to do project and group work in better ways than the non-GPS first-year students WPI had. Areas directly related to the goals of GPS that alumni reported as their areas of growth and skill development as a result of their experience in GPS were the following: . . . . .

Project management Teamwork Time management Presentation skills Critical thinking

Alumni believed that developing these skills during their first two terms at WPI through GPS helped prepare them for project work that would take place both at WPI and beyond. It is significant that the GPS alumni credited GPS with having helped them to develop these skills. What is perhaps more noteworthy, though, is that the other skills that alumni developed through their GPS experience, which are not directly related to GPS goals, are skills

70

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

that will underlie both their success in the areas that GPS had intended to influence and their success outside of WPI. The skills that the GPS program was not designed to address but that the alumni believed they developed as a direct result of their participation in the GPS are listed below: . . . .

assuming positions of leadership on a team; accepting critical feedback from others; having confidence to speak with individuals who are in positions of power; and presenting one professionally.

These skills all fall, to a certain extent, under an umbrella of developing personal and professional maturity. It appears as if the GPS served the purpose not only of quickly acclimating the first-year students to the WPI environment of heavy workloads and challenging project work but also the purpose of accelerating their ability to manage these things well. The GPS challenged these individuals to behave as professionals while they were merely first-year students, and while they struggled to do so (and even resented it at times), they not only met the challenge but also emerged with skills that will continue to serve them well during and after their time at WPI. At the end of the focus group, when asked if they had any additional comments about their GPS experience, one student said, “It gives you all the right amount of stress in the right places to make you learn the right way to do the right thing.” 5.7.3 Focus Group for GPS 2008 Similar assessment was conducted after the 2008 offerings of the GPS. The conclusions of this round of assessment were that across the board all offerings succeeded in meeting the goals of the program: they engaged students with current events, societal problems, and human needs; they encouraged students to think critically, become information literate, and produce evidence-based writing; and they challenged students to accept personal responsibility for their learning and to develop teamwork skills, time management skills, and organizational skills. The biggest benefit perceived by all was that students developed significant experience, knowledge and skill in the area of teamwork. Students felt that their participation in GPS allowed them to develop competencies that they would not have developed as first-year students had they not been in GPS, and they believed that these skills would serve them well in their future work both at WPI and beyond.

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT

71

The focus groups with students and faculty further supported the following, among other things: .

.

. . .

Students are capable of meeting the significant challenges of project work and of teamwork during their first year when they are instructed in how to approach those challenges. First-year students appreciate being treated as professionals and are capable not only of rising to the challenge but also of thriving as students as a result of it. Mentoring first-year students empowers them to become agents of change. Skills learned by students through the GPS are immediately applicable and beneficial to students outside GPS. GPS is a catalyst for intellectual growth at WPI.

5.7.4 Comments from Students After GPS 2008 Students also had the opportunity to provide feedback on their experiences in the GPS that year—through course evaluations, student reflections, and even essays for campus-wide awards. Some of these comments are included below. It is noteworthy that overwhelmingly the comments on the GPS experience are positive; we could have included significantly more, but this is a reasonable representation of the kinds of remarks the students made about their experiences in the GPS. STUDENT COMMENTS: OPEN-ENDED PROBLEMS I liked that it covered many sides of the same problem, which helped illustrate why there was a problem at all. (PTW) The seminar showed me that real-life problems are not clear-cut; they are not simple; they are multifaceted. Although this adage is something I have been told many times by my parents and teachers, GPS made me truly grasp the concept by fully experiencing it. (GC) I have learned how to evaluate a problem from multiple perspectives. . . Necessary knowledge from textbooks is useful, but knowing how and when to use it is much more important. (HTW) Doing a project like this prepares us for future Sufficiencies, IQPs and MQPs, and leaves us with the skills necessary to succeed with these projects. Now when we encounter a problem or project without any direction, we can feel confident in trusting our own judgment to approach it. This confidence is the most important thing that I’ll take from this course, and something I’ll be able to apply not only to future projects, but also to my employment and life after WPI. (HTW)

72

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

STUDENT COMMENTS: LEADERSHIP We were kind of our own bosses and needed to manage our time accordingly. It also allowed us to research the topic that most interested us. . . . I have taken more away from this class than knowledge alone. (PTW) I also learned some of the basic steps needed to be taken in order to solve complex problems and I had real world experience trying to solve a problem in the Worcester community. It was an eye-opening experience and gave me the confidence that has contributed to my present success in college. (FTW) GPS helped kick start my career by showing me what it is like to work for several months in a group to start and finish a major project. This project will help me throughout my career, not only in my resume, but using what I learned in working with others to build my leadership and team-work skills. (GC)

STUDENT COMMENTS: UNBELIEVABLE There is one thing that I took away from this course that will stay with me way longer than retroviruses or prokaryotes, epidemics and over charging for the AIDS triple cocktail. It is that one person can make a difference in the world . . . And the best thing that this class has taught me is that I have an opportunity to be one of those people. (HTW)

5.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS In his address to the 2004 Summit on Engineering Education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, President Charles Vest challenged the participants to remember that “students are driven by passion, curiosity, engagement, and dreams . . .” (quoted in [22]). In WPI’s Great Problems Seminars instructors also tap into another motivation that the students have— to step up their dreams and to work on something real. Experience of the first three years of the Great Problem Seminars convinces us that these driving forces are too strong in students in the first semester of their first year to be ignored. By surrendering, at least temporarily, content in favor of empowerment, we believe that we have provided a better foundation for learning and growth than offered by the traditional disciplinary courses.

REFERENCES

73

Our major lessons from the GPS experience include the following: (1) Students can do more than we expect in the first year. (2) Adding challenge and increasing engagement in the first year can be achieved by a new type of learning experience that let first-year students work on important problems from the first day of the first year. (3) Do not think about disciplines or traditional courses or material to cover. Think about important problems and let the problem itself demand the disciplinary learning from students. (4) A good project may not arrive at the answer. It may arrive at a better question and the ability of students to ask a better question the next time around. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many faculty members participated in the development of the Great Problems Seminars. Brian Savilonis, David Spanagel, Robert Traver, and Kristin Wobbe were the faculty who created Power the World and Feed the World in 2007. They were supported that year by James Demetry and Svetlana Nikitina, who helped advise student projects and gave additional support in writing and presentation skills. Diran Apelian, Svetlana Nikitina, Jill Rulfs, and Helen Vassalo developed the new seminars in 2008, with added project advising support provided by Fred Looft, Rick Sisson, and Gretar Tryggvason. This is a group of truly committed and incredibly creative teachers and learners. REFERENCES 1. A. Collins and R. Halverson, Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009. 2. Worcester Polytechnic Institute. WPI Global Perspective Program, 2010. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/GPP/index.html. 3. G.D. Kuh, “The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric Properties.” Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, 2003. Available: http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/ conceptual_framework_2003.pdf. 4. National Survey of Student Engagement, “Our Origins and Potential,” 2001. Available: http://nsse.iub.edu/html/origins.cfm. 5. P. Quinn, “Review of Findings from 2002 National Survey of Student Engagement Report for First-Year Students at Worcester Polytechnic Institute.”

74

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

17.

IGNITION: THE GREAT PROBLEMS SEMINARS

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, January 9, 2003. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/ Academics/Outcomes/pqmodexec.pdf. Foundation Coalition, 2008. Available: http://www.foundationcoalition.org. K.C. Frair, M. Cordes, D. Evans and J. Froyd, “The Foundation Coalition— Looking Toward the Future,” paper presented at the 1997 Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI, Oct 10–13, 2007. Available: http://fie-conference. org/fie97/papers/1078.pdf. E. Fromm and R.G. Quinn, “An Experiment to Enhance the Educational Experience of Engineering Students,” Engineering Education, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 424–429, April 1989. R. Quinn, “Drexel’s E4 Program: A Different Professional Experience for Engineering Students and Faculty,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 82, no. 4, 1993. M. Hagenberger, B. Engener and D. Tougaw, “Teaching First-Year Students the Fundamentals of Engineering,” paper presented at ASEE Illinois and Indiana North-Central Conference, 2006. Available: ilin.asee.org/Conference2006 program/Papers/Tougaw-P27.pdf N.W. Klingbeil, R.E. Mercer, K.S. Rattan, M.L. Raymer and D.B. Reynolds, “The WSU Model for Engineering Mathematics Education,” ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Portland, Oregon, 2005. W.R. Grogan, L.E. Schachterle and F.C. Lutz, “Liberal Learning in Engineering Education: The WPI Experience,” New Directions in Teaching and Learning, vol. 35, pp. 21–37, 1988. A.C. Heinricher, J. Goulet, J.E. Miller, C. Demetry, S.W. Pierson, S. Gurland, V. Crawford, P. Quinn and M.J. Pinnet, “Building Interdisciplinary Bridges Between Math, Science, and Engineering Courses,” Journal for the Art of Teaching, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 56–72, Spring, 2002. Vaz, R.F., “Connected Learning: Interdisciplinary Projects in International Settings,” Liberal Education, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 24–31, Winter, 2000. J. Froyd, “The Engineering Education Coalitions Program,” in Educating the Engineer of 2020, National Academy of Engineering. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2005. S.E. Kerns, R.K. Miller and D. V Kerns, “Designing from a Blank Slate: The Development of the Initial Olin College Curriculum,” in Educating the Engineer of 2020, National Academy of Engineering. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2005. M. Somerville, D. Anderson, H. Berbeco, J.R. Bourne, J. Crisman, D. Dabby, H. Donis-Keller, S.S. Holt, S. Kerns, D.V. Kerns, R. Martello, R. Miller, M. Moody, G. Pratt, J. C. Pratt, C. Shea, S. Schiffman, S. Spence, L.A. Stein, J.D. Stolk, B.D. Storey, B. Tilley, B. Vandiver and Y. Zastavker, “The Olin Curriculum: Thinking Toward the Future,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 198–205, 2005.

REFERENCES

75

18. M.S. Hunter and C.W. Linder, “First-Year Seminars,” in M. L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner and B.O. Barefoot (eds.), Challenging and Supporting the First-Year Student: A Handbook for Improving the First Year of College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. 19. University of South Carolina, National Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 2010. Available: http://www.sc.edu/fye/. 20. M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner and B.O. Barefoot, Challenging and Supporting the First-Year Student: A Handbook for Improving the First Year of College, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. 21. L. Menand, The Marketplace of Ideas: Reforms and Resistance in the American University. New York: Norton, 2010. 22. National Academy of Engineering, Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005. 23. D.E. Goldberg, The Entrepreneurial Engineer. New York: Wiley, 2006. 24. R.J. Sternberg, “Interdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning: An Alternative to Traditional Majors and Minors,” Liberal Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 12–17, 2008. 25. G. Tryggvason and D. Apelian, “Re-Engineering Engineering Education for the Challenges of the 21st Century,” JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 14–17, Oct, 2006. 26. R.K. Sawyer, The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 27. B. Kingsolver, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. 28. H.D. Leathers and P. Foster, The World Food Problem: Tackling Causes of Undernutrition in the Third World, 3rd edn. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 2004. 29. W. McDonough and M. Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Thing. New York: North Point Press, 2002. 30. P. Menzel and F. D’Aluisio, Hungry Planet: What the World Eats. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press, 2005. 31. M. Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006. 32. A.W. Crosby, Children of the Sun: A History of Humanity’s Unappeasable Appetite for Energy. New York: Norton, 2006. 33. S. Tobias, They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation, 1990.

CHAPTER 6

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD RICHARD F. VAZ, NATALIE A. MELLO, and DAVID DIBIASIO

6.1 INTRODUCTION Our “flattened” world is characterized by change, connectivity, and competition. Increasingly, knowledge is communal, technical skill is a commodity, and engineering obstacles are social rather than technical. Scientists and engineers are facing new challenges, implying the need for significant educational reform. In particular, leaders from academia, industry, and the public sector have issued compelling calls for change in engineering education, arguing that the nation’s competitiveness and standard of living hinges on its ability to educate a generation of engineers ready to face the challenges of the twenty-first century. One component common to these visions of the twenty-first century engineer is global preparedness: the ability to work effectively anywhere in the world, to produce solutions suited to different cultures and contexts, and to communicate effectively with a wide range of audiences. The discussion has moved to include deans and department heads, professional societies, and funding agencies, and many institutions are taking initiatives to respond to the challenge. Unfortunately, engineering students continue to be underrepresented in study abroad, still comprising less than 5% of US students gaining international experience [1]. Few science and engineering programs have been able to make significant progress in providing students with international experiences. The challenge facing technological education is establishment of international programs that are scalable to accommodate many students, and sustainable beyond the first generation of faculty leaders. Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

77

78

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

The Global Perspective Program (GPP) at Worcester Polytechnic Institute is proof that international experiences for engineering and science students can be both scalable and sustainable. WPI sends 50% of its students overseas—about 400 students each year—and has operated the program for nearly three decades, with over 7500 students participating, the majority of them engineering students. WPI has sent more engineering students abroad than any college or university in the country, regardless of size. However, the GPP’s primary distinction is not in its scale, but in its educational focus and scope. Rather than attending other universities, WPI students travel around the globe to solve problems for local agencies and organizations under faculty guidance. Combining project-based experiential learning, service learning, undergraduate research, and study abroad, the program is a model of how universities can place high-engagement experiences at the center of the curriculum rather than at its periphery. While enhancing global learning, the program also promotes significant achievement in interdisciplinary problem solving, critical thinking, communication, and teamwork—essential skills for twenty-first century professionals. 6.2 WPI’S PROJECT-BASED CURRICULUM Academic project work is central to the undergraduate curriculum at WPI, and is at the heart of the GPP. Every student must complete three projects: a capstone experience in the Humanities and Arts (usually completed in the second year), a project relating technology to society (the Interactive Qualifying Project or IQP, in the third year), and a design or research project in the major (the Major Qualifying Project or MQP, in the fourth year). These projects are the vehicle for international activity at WPI; students can complete any or all of these three requirements off campus through the GPP. The first project forms the capstone experience for a thematically related sequence in some area of the arts or humanities, generally involving an original research paper or creative work. The other two projects are each equivalent to three courses, and are completed in small teams under faculty supervision, often for external sponsors. Neither takes place in a classroom setting; both involve open-ended inquiry and problem-solving. The interdisciplinary IQP, unique to WPI, helps students understand the social and humanistic contexts of their professions. This degree requirement presents small, multidisciplinary teams of students with a problem involving both technical and societal aspects, challenging them to reflect on the relationship of science and technology to civic issues and community needs. The learning outcomes of the IQP include critical and contextual thinking, persuasive written and oral communication, integration, and synthesis. The MQP is not unlike senior projects at other institutions, except that it is typically more extensive and often involves external

EDUCATIONAL MOTIVATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

79

sponsorship. MQP students must demonstrate application of skills, methods, and knowledge of the discipline to the solution of a real problem in their field. Similar to the IQP, the MQP learning goals are transferrable, focusing on problem-solving, communication, and professional skills. Most engineering institutions require their students to complete a senior thesis, which is the culmination of all they have learned during their education. . . WPI’s project system allows a small team of students to formulate their own project, where they are responsible for product design, but also keeping in mind schedule, cost analysis, and world impact. The project system at WPI is iterative; students are required to complete both an interdisciplinary and design project during their time at WPI, which they can complete at most of the project centers around the world. I completed my senior design project locally in Massachusetts. This project resulted in an extremely time constrained and intense invention that eventually received an award from a national publication. The success of this project relied on our already developed project management skills. The experience I had in Copenhagen, Denmark, the prior year prepared me for this rigorous project, which eventually led to my full-time career at Apple. —Michael Cretella 2007

To accommodate off-campus projects, the WPI academic calendar operates on four 7-week terms per academic year. Students normally take three courses each term. While on-campus projects are often spread over multiple terms and done while the student is also taking other courses, the off-campus projects are always completed full-time in one term, either during the academic year or during a fifth summer term. Table 6.1 illustrates how an off-campus project and its preparation are accommodated within a typical engineering student’s junior year schedule. 6.3 EDUCATIONAL MOTIVATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The GPP instructional paradigm is based upon the well-established theory of situated learning, which features authentic activities, contexts, and assessments [2,3]. Authentic learning environments place students in situations that mimic knowledge construction in professional practice. Learners have access to both WPI and host country experts, and are engaged through a process of initiation much like the apprentice-learning model [4]. Teambased collaborative activities provide students with multiple roles and multiple opportunities to engage material [5].

80

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

TABLE 6.1 Sample Engineering Student Junior Year, Accommodating an International Project Typical Load of Three Courses per Term/ Project Preparation Equivalent to 1.5 Courses A Term Art history

Each Term is 7 Weeks in Duration/ Project Equivalent to Three Courses

B Term

C Term

Comm. systems

Interdisciplinary project (IQP) completed in Thailand

Discrete signal analysis Linear algebra Advanced logic Research design methods Thai culture and language

D Term Studio art

RF design Microprocessor systems design

GPP students learn by engaging real, open-ended problems in the context of human society. They must understand the broader implication of their decisions, and must in particular learn quickly how to function effectively in multicultural settings. Instruction in language and culture helps prepare them to live and work in local settings and discover how local cultural, historical, and religious influences affect how work is done and define the parameters of what is an acceptable project solution. The overall experience is designed to produce engineers who can overcome segmented thinking by working outside of disciplinary constraints, and who understand cultural, social, and intellectual diversity. By definition the projects are hands-on, interdisciplinary, and substantial (9 credit hours). Students learn to gather, analyze, and interpret quantitative and qualitative information to achieve their goals. Professional communication is emphasized throughout the project. To be dropped into Madrid, Bangkok, or Limerick (as I was) with a relatively short amount of time to complete an intensive project is an exercise in adaptability. You are in a place so culturally different from what you are accustomed to, that standing any chance of getting the resources together to finish your work demands that you learn how to adjust your usual M.O. . . . what has stuck with me about the three projects I did abroad, much more so than any particular aspect of the work itself, is understanding the types of adjustments I might have to make to work effectively with people in another culture. It is not about how to get along in Thailand so much as it is about how to get along away from your home court in general. It has been a great help professionally to already have those lessons learned as my engineering career has brought me periodically to the Far East and other parts of the world. —Daniel Boothe 2003

PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND IMPACT

81

Recently, the Study Abroad for Global Engagement (SAGE) research group conducted the most extensive, in-depth assessment of study abroad ever done in the US [6]. Over 6300 alumni of international programs at WPI and 22 other universities participated. Not surprisingly, results showed that study abroad had the single largest impact on participants’ lives of all college experiences. The type of international experience was found to be very important to the impact. Compared to coursework, travel seminars, and other structures, “field research and internships” such as WPI’s had the highest positive effect for improving global values and global leadership. The most surprising result was that duration abroad was not a significant factor; the study found shortterm programs such as WPI’s to be just as effective in promoting global engagement outcomes as longer programs. Students at WPI, as is common for engineering and science students in general, often come from socioeconomic backgrounds where opportunities to travel or live in foreign countries are limited. Most students going abroad for their projects find it a “transforming experience.” The program gives them the understanding and confidence to work successfully in a global world, combined with development of leadership and communication skills.

6.4 PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND IMPACT Currently, WPI operates 25 Project Centers throughout the world. Students at these centers work fulltime for a period of 7–10 weeks solving problems for local agencies and organizations in small teams, under WPI faculty supervision. The program is academically rigorous, emphasizing contextual thinking, analysis, development of useful and sustainable solutions, and persuasive presentation of results. WPI’s engineering, science, humanities, social science, and management faculty work together to develop and deliver the programs, and the student teams address interdisciplinary problems for public, private, and not-for-profit organizations worldwide. A key to the GPP’s success in involving a majority of engineering students has been substantive involvement from engineering colleagues. The program is not dependent on a handful of champions, but has become an institutional commitment. Widespread involvement by faculty across campus has helped to create a more globally aware faculty with expertise in project-based global learning, and has impact on the teaching and research on campus. The GPP is part of an institutional culture that encourages normally risk-averse engineering students to participate in large numbers and ensures that the program will be sustained into the future.

82

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

One aspect of project advising that has meant a great deal to me is getting to know many of my students in ways that are nearly impossible to achieve even in seminars. Being privy to my students’ personal characteristics and foibles hasn’t always been an unalloyed pleasure, but overall it has immensely enriched my experience as a teacher and has been an indispensable reminder of how distinctive and often how vulnerable are the young people entrusted to us. More than any studies on the subject, project advising has impressed me with the diversity of learning styles and capabilities among students. Many who are only middling performers in the classroom truly blossom in the project setting. In fact, nearly all the students are stretched by the project experience and seeing them come to realize and revel in their capacity for dealing with all sorts of novel challenges is one of the great rewards of the project effort, for me as well as for them. —Stephen J. Weininger, Professor of Chemistry

Limited space allows only a few examples from the hundreds of projects conducted by WPI students abroad: In Cape Town, South Africa, students worked with community partners and city government to design and implement the first communal laundry facility in the informal settlements. In Venice, WPI students worked with the public and private sectors to optimize the city’s boat cargo delivery, combining sophisticated GIS applications, clever data tracking, and carefully cultivated relationships with individual boat captains to design a system that halves delivery times and the attendant boat traffic, pollution, and canal damage. WPI students in Thailand have worked to promote science literacy in impoverished areas by developing and implementing hands-on science laboratory experiments at rural schools. WPI students in Costa Rica synthesized expert knowledge of fish farming into bilingual leaflets that teach subsistence farmers in rural areas to raise fish in a simple pond, improving the family diet and adding a cash crop. Across the program, WPI students seek to develop appropriate, sustainable solutions to locally defined problems by partnering with organizations and community members. Global engagement of engineering students is a growing concern, yet the profession has made little progress toward its solution. WPI’s GPP is the oldest and arguably the most successful international program in engineering education. Its success is evidenced by methodical assessment of the program, by the accomplishments of its graduates, by national awards, and by the universities and organizations that have sought to learn about the program. Rooted in rigorous pedagogy, creatively and effectively integrated into the institution’s academic fabric, and recognized widely for its comprehensive

PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND IMPACT

83

approach to program management, the WPI Global Perspective Program has benefited hundreds of sponsoring organizations throughout the world while preparing thousands of engineering students for wise and effective leadership in the twenty-first century. The Global Perspective Program has become an integral part of WPI’s student and faculty culture; over 50% of students and nearly 40% of faculty participate. The institution highlights the GPP in student and faculty recruitment, development, marketing, and outreach efforts. Students report that potential employers, long ago favorably impressed by WPI’s project program, no longer ask in interviews just what the projects were about, but also where projects were completed. Extensive student and faculty participation has installed a definite “global” outlook on campus, not only for participants but also for those who stay as well. As an example, the GPP’s emphases on sustainability and the developing world have also raised awareness of those issues on campus. National recognition for the GPP has included WPI being named 1 of 16 national Leadership Institutions by AAC&U in 2002; the Association of International Educators citation for “exemplary work to internationalize the campus”; the 2003 TIAA-CREF Certificate of Excellence in the Theodore M. Hesburgh Award program for preparing faculty for the demands of supervising student projects abroad; and the 2004 Institute of International Education’s Andrew Heiskell Award for Innovation in International Education. The GPP has also drawn national media recognition; in 2007 alone, it was cited as an exemplary model of study abroad in American Scientist (Sept–Oct 2007), The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 1, 2007); The New York Times (Nov 4, 2007), The Christian Science Monitor (Sept 27, 2007), and US News & World Report (2007 Best Colleges Issue). Student work in specific locations has been highlighted in The Smithsonian and National Geographic.

My IQP in Thailand remains my single most meaningful experience at WPI. The project I worked on had a tremendous impact on how I think about international development and the need for a global point of view when analyzing complex social issues. By being able to work with a population of underserved girls with disabilities in Thailand, the challenges of integrating the demands of the project with new cultural norms were great, but the rewards were far greater. I was able to work on creating potential resolutions to serious issues and it was empowering to know that these recommendations could possibly improve the lives of others. Beyond learning the technical aspects, such as methodologies and data collection, my partners and I learned so much more from the “human” aspects of the

84

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

project by taking a step back, rethinking preconceived notions, suspending cultural expectations and attempting to see things from another person’s perspective. —Melinda Palma 2004

6.5 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE PROGRAM The Global Perspective Program at WPI began in the 1970s and has grown steadily since its inception. Today, approximately 50% of all WPI engineering students complete at least one international project before graduation. At WPI’s Project Center, students and faculty live and work full-time addressing problems of importance to local agencies and organizations. Humanities and arts projects are currently completed at centers in Morocco and the UK. Interdisciplinary projects (IQPs) are done at centers in Australia, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Italy, Namibia, South Africa, Thailand, and the UK. WPI also runs domestic IQP centers in Washington DC, Santa Fe, Nantucket, Boston, and Worcester. Senior design projects (MQPs) can be completed at centers in Canada, China, France, Hungary, Ireland, Korea, and the UK, or domestic centers including Silicon Valley and Wall Street. In 2008–2009, approximately 500 students will complete off-campus projects at these Project Centers. Most students experience the Global Perspective Program through the IQP, which helps engineering students understand the social, cultural, and global contexts in which their lives and careers will take place. Although these interdisciplinary projects encompass a broad range of topics, certain themes are common: environment and energy; urban studies and infrastructure; capacity building and sustainable development; social implications of information technology; technology and public policy. Projects often draw on the social sciences for methods and analysis, and typically result in some process, product, or recommendations in response to the problem posted by the sponsoring organization. Students and faculty are prepared not only for the project topic but also for the cultural context in which the project will be executed. These undertakings are supported by rigorous on-campus student preparation that blends culture, history, and language of the site with intensive research on the project topics. Students develop a detailed project proposal encompassing a review of the relevant literature, the establishment of clear goals, and the formulation of a methodology appropriate for achieving specified goals. Each project,

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE PROGRAM

85

regardless of its area of focus, calls upon students to develop transferable skills in critical thinking and persuasive writing. Students generally receive broad problem statements from the project sponsors, and must propose specific and achievable goals. Projects typically involve topics or methods that are completely new to the students, who are called upon to independently acquire enough knowledge of the subjects to complete the work. The advisors who will accompany the students to the site also participate in this preparation, which is coordinated by WPI’s Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division. I applied to the project center in Bangkok, Thailand. I didn’t know anything about the project or my eventual teammates. Three months later, I would find myself standing ankle deep in a northeast Thailand rice field interviewing a local farmer about his farming practices with my classmates, a biomedical engineer and a mechanical engineer. The experience gave me a new appreciation for the ways science and technology can improve the lives of others and a new definition of what I could accomplish. I know for a fact that my international project work at WPI was a major factor in obtaining job offers. I had the exact mix of coursework and global experience they were looking for. —Irving Liimatta 2000

In keeping with the interdisciplinary nature of the IQP, student teams and faculty advisors are drawn from all of WPI’s academic departments, bringing a breadth of skills and perspectives to each project. The students work in teams of three or four with students and advisors from different disciplinary and cultural backgrounds. Students and advisors work closely with the professional liaisons at the sponsoring agencies, and often engage in community-based research as well. Since each IQP involves issues at the interface between society and technology, students become aware of how their work as engineers will affect and be affected by social structures and values. Furthermore, since these projects take place far from campus, the students are confronted daily with the reality of living and working in an unfamiliar environment. This experience not only broadens their view of their professions and world events but also often leads to greater levels of self-knowledge and awareness of cultural difference. Before traveling abroad as a part of WPI’s Global Perspective Program, I was unclear about my future role in the engineering profession. My experience in the Global Perspective Program broadened my view of

86

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

careers in technology and was the catalyst to explore the connections between technology and sustainable development. Throughout my career, I have met many people who are impressed by the integrity and leadership skills of WPI graduates. The engineering community has recognized that the WPI Global Perspective Program does not just produce well-rounded engineers; it produces well-rounded people. —Matt Arner 1998

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE PROGRAM

87

88

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

Senior projects (MQPs) conducted through the GPP follow a similar structure, except the focus is on engineering design, and the sponsors are more often industrial partners or research laboratories. MQP teams are given a technical challenge that requires them to go far beyond the coursework in their major to design and implement a successful solution in a professional setting. Students working at the Enterprise Research Centre in Limerick, Ireland developed a gaseous molecule detector called “e-nose,” with uses ranging from detection of gas leaks or explosives to verifying the condition of fresh foods and plants. WPI students at the Wuhan, China center work in crosscultural teams with Chinese engineering students to tackle manufacturing and industrial engineering challenges for multinational companies such as Caterpillar and United Technologies. For both IQPs and MQPs, each project is documented by an extensive written report completed during the course of the project. This report details the students’ literature search, outlines their research methodology, documents their fieldwork and analysis, and presents conclusions, findings, and recommendations in addition to any other tangible outcomes of the project. Each project team gives formal presentations of their project progress regularly, with a special emphasis on effective presentation skills. Additionally, each project culminates in a formal oral presentation of the results of the project to the sponsors and other interested parties. Recent growth of the program has focused largely on the developing world, where finding practical solutions to fundamental community needs can help students better understand issues of appropriate technology and sustainability. Expansion of these programs has also been motivated by student and faculty interest. Enrollment data reveals that WPI’s female students have particularly strong interest in development-related projects, and increasingly, students report that the opportunity to complete a project in the developing world was a deciding factor in attending WPI. Table 6.2 presents a list of projects that have recently been recognized for institutional awards by panels of external judges, reflecting the program’s shift toward the developing world; Table 6.3 presents two example projects in more detail.

“I found that my time abroad working with fellow students and professors on problems facing the real world was the highlight of my time at WPI. I learned how to apply my knowledge in real world situations while developing the confidence to live in and interact with cultures very different than my own. I developed a strong sense of self as a professional and an American as well as empathy and an appreciation for other cultures’ beliefs and practices. I was able to challenge myself academically and personally in ways I had never

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVOLUTION OF THE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE PROGRAM

89

imagined before I entered WPI. I will always look back on those experiences as the time where I grew into a knowledgeable and confident person, ready to take on whatever challenges might come my way.” —Virginia Ward 2007 TABLE 6.2 Award Winning Interdisciplinary Projects from Recent Years 2008 Winners, President’s IQP Awards . Design and Construction of a Communal Laundry Station in Monwabisi Park, Cape Town . A Survey of the Waterfront of Victoria Harbor, Hong Kong . Managing Water and Sanitation in the Fish River Basin of Namibia 2007 Winners, President’s IQP Awards . Energy Profiling for Off-Grid Energization Solutions in Namibia . HIV/AIDS Prevention Education: A Look at Awareness Activities at the Polytechnic of Namibia . Developing a Strategy to Improve Solar Home System Sustainability in Rural Thailand 2006 Winners, President’s IQP Awards . Flooding and Erosion Control in the Informal Settlements of Windhoek, Namibia . Content Suggestions for Universally Designed Hearing Aids, Melbourne, Australia . Good Management Practices for Shrimp Farming in Costa Rica

TABLE 6.3 Detailed Examples of Global Perspective Program Projects Flooding and Erosion Control in the Informal Settlements of Windhoek, Namibia, 2006 Students: Nicole Labbe, Nicholas McBride, Ethan Ray Advisors: C. Demetry, Materials Science; R. Vaz, Electrical Engineering Sponsor: Namibia Housing Action Group The settlement of Otjomuise in Windhoek, Namibia experiences flooding and erosion problems during the rainy season. The goal of this project was to increase community capacity to solve rainwater problems, and was achieved using participatory methods to assess problems and develop and implement solutions. Solutions used no-cost materials and were implemented largely by the community. These implementations suggest sustainability for communitybased initiatives in Otjomuise. A broader outreach was initiated using knowledge exchange meetings and an informational pamphlet produced in both English and Afrikaans. Cultural Preservation Using Solar Technology, 2004 Students: Christopher Treat, Justin Crafford, Colin Morel, Benjamin Mar Advisor: J. Brattin, English; S. Weininger, Chemistry Sponsor: Mirror Art Group Our team worked with the Mirror Art Group to install a solar electric unit in Ban Jalae, a rural hill tribe village in northern Thailand. The photovoltaic system provides electricity for educational equipment in a cultural center that showcases Lahu customs and traditions, as part of an effort to increase awareness of Lahu culture and combat assimilation into mainstream Thai society. In addition, we analyzed the cultural and societal impacts of this technology.

90

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

6.6 PROGRAM OVERSIGHT AND OPERATION The WPI Global Perspective Program enjoys strong support from the university’s leadership, faculty, and student body. A Dean of the Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division (IGSD), who reports directly to the Provost, administers the program. The IGSD has its own operating budget and staff. Each Project Center has one or more Center Directors, faculty members who build and sustain the programs, shaping the educational mission and local impact. Generally, faculty members in these positions have reduced teaching loads. Center Directors work with local professionals and organizations to identify project opportunities, secure resources, and arrange for on-site housing and logistics. Because most sites operate only one term each year, many directors work closely with local coordinators employed by WPI at the site to maintain ongoing relationships with housing providers and sponsoring agencies. Center Directors also promote the programs, interview and select students, develop cultural preparation and orientation programming, and help orient faculty advisors to the challenges they will face. The role of faculty advisors is critical to student learning. Advisors provide guidance and mentoring to all of the student teams, sometimes in areas outside of their fields of expertise. Faculty advisors become visible to students on site as “reflective practitioners” who are continually engaged in a process of learning and discovery through a critique of both their own and their students’ activity. In this way, students are provided with models for the lifelong learning necessary to thrive in our rapidly changing world. WPI typically sends 24 students and 2 advisors to each residential Project Center. As the regular teaching load at WPI is one course per term, the institutional commitment in terms of instruction corresponds roughly to the teaching of two courses, but the overall resource implications are greater, since residential advisors generally find that guiding the students’ work to be a demanding, fulltime endeavor. The rewards of this type of mentoring, however, are substantial; the IGSD has been extremely successful in recruiting interested faculty members, often from the ranks of the most distinguished and productive members of the faculty.

When students go to the developing world—to India, to Namibia, to Morocco—they are always shocked by the lack of infrastructural development: the poor roads, the lack of basic services in water or electricity, the bureaucratic confusion that arises from a weak civil service, and so forth. Most come to appreciate more fervently the benefits of being an American,

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT AND OPERATION

91

and this is understandable. The trick as an advisor is also to help students understand the richness of cultures that lie smothered beneath the problems of modernization. —W.A. Addison, Associate Professor of Humanities and Arts

Each year, faculty members apply from across the campus to participate as residential project advisors at the various sites. Those chosen travel with the students and reside on site during the entire experience. Responsibilities of the advisors include not only the typical academic issues that arise but also issues that take place due to living on site and off campus. Because there are special issues that arise from being away from campus for all participants—students and faculty alike—training has been developed specifically for advisors at offcampus locations. A conscientious approach to risk management has necessitated preparing advisors for worst-case scenarios, while also providing the less experienced off-campus advisors with an opportunity to learn from their colleagues who have been away often. Areas of concern that are addressed during these training sessions include: sexual harassment, transportation, drugs and alcohol, recognizing and responding to students at risk, health and safety issues, housing concerns, students’ behavior, social and personal growth, and helping students get the most of the cultural experience. All of these areas are deemed to be out of the purview of regular project advising and therefore get special attention. Each project, regardless of its area of focus, calls upon students to develop specific skills. As students work with broad problem statements and develop specific goals for their project, they are actively engaged in open-ended problem solving. Typically project topics are outside the scope of the students’ areas of study, and therefore the students must learn how to learn about new subjects. Teamwork skills are honed and practiced throughout the experience as students work together to produce a solution. The formal documentation and presentation skills required to successfully complete an academic project off campus ensure that students master how to communicate in a variety of mediums and for a variety of audiences, and that faculty develop skills in helping students achieve those competencies. In addition to the academic preparation, students are also oriented and prepared for the cultural, religious, and ethnic differences they may encounter off campus. This may include specific language training, depending on the site. Faculty members with expertise in the area provide a general history of the site where the students are going. Students are instructed as to proper dress, proper etiquette, and how to expect the host country nationals to treat them. This is all augmented with site-specific handbooks that include policies and

92

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

paperwork, health and safety information specific to the site, logistical information regarding where they will be living, and advice for dealing with transition issues. Orientations have developed over time at WPI to be much more than the traditional lecture and review of the handbook. The model employed currently is an interactive one that addresses different learning styles, imparts the responsibility for learning about critical issues to the students, and engages them in a series of meaningful activities. 6.7 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT WPI has assessed student-learning outcomes of projects completed both on and off campus since 1986. The assessment examines WPI’s educational goals and several of the more difficult EC 2000 accreditation criteria, including multidisciplinary teaming, ethical and professional responsibility, impact of engineering in global/societal context, recognition of lifelong learning, and knowledge of contemporary issues. Results consistently show that achievement of learning outcomes in projects done abroad is very high, well above the comparison group of projects done on campus, demonstrating that GPP projects satisfy accreditation outcomes in ways that are not possible on campus. The GPP’s multilevel assessment extends from student preparation through final product evaluation and is probably the most comprehensive program assessment in international education [7]. It is likely that the extensive preparation for projects conducted off campus and the additional advising provided by project sponsors invested in producing high-quality results help account for these striking differences. The GPP recently developed a new faculty advisor assessment that is unique in international education, not just engineering. As the Global Perspective Program evolved, so did the sense that offcampus projects produced superior results. Student interest in international projects grew, as did accreditation agency pressures to demonstrate global awareness and other general education outcomes aligned with the Interactive Qualifying Project. Accordingly, considerable effort has been made to assess student learning, faculty advising, and program operation, with the greatest attention devoted to learning outcomes assessment. The program was developed in the belief that certain learning outcomes are best achieved in an offcampus setting rather than just in the classroom or through information technology, since off-campus opportunities allow students to move from self-knowledge to understanding complex relationships, multiple perspectives, and crosscultural issues [8]. The GPP instructional design includes authentic activities and contexts. Assessments that are consistent with this instructional design are usually

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

93

performance-based [9,10]. Most other colleges provide these elements in senior-level courses. Providing them at lower levels of the curriculum can be problematic since the traditional assumption is that students must learn fundamentals before they can successfully attack significant open-ended problems. How can students solve difficult open-ended interdisciplinary problems before they have actually learned all of what they need to know in order to solve them? How can they do this in foreign culture when a significant language barrier exists? The answer lies in proper preparation, project and team management, and in providing multidimensional assessments that support the academic enterprise and inform program design and improvement. The assessment network functions at multiple levels, as the absence of any one level could degrade the student learning process. Assessment is used for continuous improvement of all program aspects. Team assignments occur prior to project initiation: GPP application information, student project preference forms, major discipline, gender, and learning styles factor are considered for coming into this decision. Required preparation classes include training in teaming and professionalism. Practice in peer and self-evaluation in team situations is included as are proper techniques for conducting meetings. During the on-site project phase (in the host location) a variety of standard tools is used to monitor team progress. Team performance contracts are often created by teams and signed by each team member. Periodic contract reviews provide a first assessment of individual contributions, and formative peer assessments help teams improve their effectiveness. Faculty advisors qualitatively evaluate group meetings with sponsors and advisors, and provide weekly written and/or oral feedback on group writing and oral presentations. An explicit grading guide is distributed early in the project so that students have a reference about how this unusual academic exercise will eventually be graded. That guide delineates how team process is assessed and how it is weighted against the final product. Each team must produce a final report and present their results and analysis in a presentation at the sponsoring agency. Advisor evaluation of these major events is the primary component of the product grade (see Table 6.4). Students also complete a final peer evaluation form that provides individual accountability. It also allows, when combined with other evidence, awarding of individual final grades. The goal of this integrated assessment plan is to maximize benefits of this experience not only for the students but also for advisors and sponsors. Developing a comprehensive assessment plan, given the complex nature of the program, was a substantial task. As at other universities, many WPI students find going abroad a transforming experience. However, evidence for this claim is primarily anecdotal and though it carries emotional force, such evidence is rarely useful in comprehensive program improvement or in probing student

94

Is the team working to understand how their work relates to the sponsor and the local environment?

Does the team meet deadlines and conduct work in a timely fashion?

Is each weekly presentation clear and professional? Is the team organized and working as a team? Do all members demonstrate the ability to perform several different roles within the team (i.e., research, writing, leadership)? Does the team effectively translate issues and situations into meaningful tasks that have a clear purpose? Does the team effectively use a variety of information-gathering techniques and information resources? Does the team consistently and accurately determine whether information is credible and relevant to tasks? Is the team aware of feedback, attentive to advice (e.g., taking notes and minutes at meetings), and responsive to that advice by making corrections and adjustments as needed? Does the team show determination in the pursuit of solutions and use strategies to keep themselves on task?

Do ALL members of the team fully engage in the preparation activities? Do ALL members participate in weekly meetings? Is the student-generated agenda well-organized, well-written, and professional for the weekly meetings?

Assessing Process Quality

Assessing Product Quality

Did the team effectively document and report information about the project, in written and oral form, including a professional presentation to the sponsor? Did the team demonstrate knowledge of the interaction between the project work and the local context? Did the finished project demonstrate appropriate findings in which the conclusions were properly derived from complete analysis of the evidence gathered?

Were there clearly stated, achievable goals, appropriately defined, and qualified by the project team? Did the team strive to achieve as much balance possible between the technical and social/humanistic aspects of the project topic? Did the project achieve the goals? Did the team demonstrate knowledge of the relevant literature and other background sources; evaluate this material critically and apply it appropriately to the project work? Did the team take initiative? Did the students make the project their own, and pursue its completion independently? Did the team design and apply appropriate methodologies to achieve the goal? Did each student fulfill his/her responsibilities to partners, sponsors, advisors, and other students? Did the team analyze the data or information collected in an appropriate fashion?

TABLE 6.4 Indicators of Quality in the Process and the Product of Student Projects

Assessing student project work

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

95

learning across the entire study abroad cohort. Hence, assessment efforts have sought a deeper and broader understanding of the social, professional, and cognitive growth demonstrated by students as a result of their global experience, using a variety of research and assessment tools for program evaluation. The multilevel, multitemporal assessment process includes a fairly well developed and comprehensive program-level assessment, a new faculty-level assessment, and frequent student-level evaluations. The major evaluation tool for the student work product of IQPs is that reports written by on- and off-campus teams and submitted for grades during a calendar year are read periodically and evaluated by a team of paid faculty reviewers. This practice was established over a decade ago. Although this assessment probes only the written product, it has proven quite useful in identifying characteristics of high-quality projects. For each evaluation cycle, a team of 10–12 experienced faculty project advisors is recruited to serve as reviewers. They meet for two half-day workshops for training and calibration. The process uses an internally developed evaluation form for assessment of each report. Prior to each review cycle the form is reviewed, discussed, and updated as appropriate. WPI has spent considerable effort writing rubrics to standardize the evaluation. For calibration, each reviewer is given the same project reports to read and evaluate using the form. The group convenes for a second half-day to debrief each evaluation, attempt to calibrate against the rubrics, and minimize variance in application of the rubrics. Very often rubrics are rewritten on the basis of the discussion. The evaluation form contains questions regarding project objectives, quality of the literature review, application of appropriate methodologies, findings and analysis of data, achievement of educational goals, and quality of the writing and presentation. Recent additions include sections related to new engineering accreditation outcomes [11,12] that the IQP potentially addresses. The outcomes important for new accreditation requirements are as follows: . . . . .

Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams; Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning; Knowledge of contemporary issues; Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.

Table 6.5 presents example rubrics, showing the scales used for evaluating ABET Outcome 3h “the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context.” The evaluation is designed to facilitate objective assessment of both on- and off-campus project reports. Each reviewer is randomly assigned 15–20 reports

96

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

TABLE 6.5 Rubrics for Evaluation of Accreditation Outcome for “Impact of Engineering Solutions in a Global and Societal Context” Exposure to Global Issues and/or Foreign Cultures Rating 5: excellent The project was conducted at a foreign off-campus site and dealt, in a substantive fashion, with topics that were clearly global in nature or international in scope. If conducted on campus, the project focused on and effectively analyzed topics that were clearly identified as global or international. Rating 3: acceptable The project was conducted at a foreign off-campus site or dealt, in a substantive fashion, with topics that were clearly global in nature or international in scope. Rating 1: poor The project was conducted on campus and contained only oblique indications that the students were aware that some of the problems being addressed were global or international in character. Impact of Engineering Solutions on Society Rating 5: excellent The project is focused heavily, if not entirely, on such an impact and evaluates it effectively using the most appropriate methodologies. Rating 3: acceptable Evaluation of such an impact is a significant component of the project and was conducted using sensible methods (if not state-of-the-art). Rating 1: poor Evaluation of such an impact is a relatively peripheral or incidental component of the project and appropriate methodologies either were not employed or shed little light on this issue.

to read and evaluate. Data from each form is entered into a database for analysis. Many student reports approach 100 pages in length. The evaluation form has 35 questions and subquestions, including comment entries. Hence, the reviewer’s task is not a small one! Within the program there is an Assessment Coordinator who analyzes the results and writes a report to the WPI community. Separate reports are prepared for each academic department summarizing results for their own students. The GPP staff works collaboratively on continuous improvement issues as informed by assessment measures such as the one described. These may involve changes in the student preparation, advisor training, sponsor consultation, resource allocation, or any other issues identified as problematic from the review process. Below are described some examples of program review results and how they are used. The most striking result has been a persistent and significant quality gap between on- and off-campus (GPP) projects. This gap emerged with GPP expansion and has grown each year since 1997. Assessment results show that

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

97

projects conducted by student teams at off-campus sites consistently outrank those done on campus in nearly aspect. GPP students were better able to develop project objectives, synthesize the appropriate literature, and employ proper methods than those who remained on campus. They also conduct more appropriate analysis, draw sounder conclusions, and communicate the results better in written form than nonparticipants. Although GPP participants are selected through an involved application process, there are not significant GPA differences between them and oncampus students. It is possible that issues such as learning preferences, motivation, willingness to take intellectual risks, teaming skills, and other attributes separate the GPP cohort from their peers who stay on campus. It is also the case that off-campus projects involve more deliberate preparation and enjoy more focused attention from both faculty and students. In an attempt to replicate the off-campus quality, WPI created a project center within the city of Worcester and structured it similarly to global centers. Initial assessments show encouraging improvements in team product quality despite small cohort sizes. However, the program has struggled to attract students and cannot provide the international experiences that many of them seek. Program-level assessment has indicated other areas for improvement and has provided a base from which to design that improvement. The assessment is designed to avoid the pitfalls associated with over-reliance on anecdotal data and is directly related to the educational objectives of the IQP. Hence, curricular improvements designed to address program deficiencies can be made with some confidence. Faculty advising has also been the subject of a strong assessment effort. The roles and responsibilities of the off-campus project team advisor are unlike those of traditional teaching. All student work is done outside the classroom; all of it is done in teams; each team has a different, complex, open-ended project; and rarely does the advisor have deep technical expertise in the project topic. Students are also responsible to the sponsoring agency, whose goals may sometimes diverge from WPI’s academic goals. In practice, the entire GPP requires faculty and staff to work in teams, something many faculty are not inclined to do! The advising team’s prime academic role is really that of project manager and coach. In addition to academic roles, advisors must also handle the myriad problems that can arise during any study abroad sojourn. This requires advisors to handle cultural orientation, culture shock, and communication issues; and be an on-site counselor, disciplinarian, enforcer of university policies, mentor, team process facilitator, social event coordinator, risk manager, health and safety officer, and ultimately evaluator (a final grade is assigned). However, they do not do all this in a vacuum; WPI has established an extensive support system for the program. All off-campus advisors apply

98

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

TABLE 6.6 Advisor Dimensions and Assessment Data Source Dimension

Project support and facilitation Personal support and accessibility Cultural guidance and orientation Policy compliance

Source Students

Coadvisor

Global Studies Division

Yes Yes Yes —

— Yes Yes —

— — Yes Yes

for the position and are screened before official appointment. All are also required to attend in-depth workshops that typically focus on developing advising skills in nonacademic areas [13]. Almost always, experienced advisors are assigned to mentor new advisors. Just as good classroom teaching evaluation is used for improving teaching and presumably improving student learning, WPI’s experience is that good advising results in better student learning and better achievement of academic goals. Accordingly, the university set out to develop and implement an advisor assessment that could be used for both reward and remediation. However, there is little or no specific literature providing experience for evaluating a teaching experience such as described here. Published work on classroom teaching evaluation served as the basis [14]; the GPP contracted an expert in teaching evaluation (Dr. R. Arreola of Memphis State University), formed a committee of students, staff, and faculty, and developed an evaluation process. Table 6.6 summarizes the overall dimensions that were deemed important for advisors. Within each dimension are several specific characteristics (not shown here). Table 6.8 illustrates the most appropriate source for gathering assessment data on each dimension. The approach was to develop the student evaluation form first and pilot-test an advisor evaluation form to be completed by students at the end of the sojourn. The form has 48 questions rated on a strongly disagree to strongly agree Likert-type scale. Multiple questions address each of the dimensions (except policy compliance) shown above. There is also room for open-ended questions and responses. Dr. Arreola completed the first round of the evaluation form including some recommendations for item wording. The goal is a validated, multisource advisor evaluation process that recognizes the seriousness of this teaching experience, evaluates multiple dimensions, and is useful for remediation and reward. Assessment results suggest strongly that third-year engineering and science students can solve ambiguous open-ended problems in off-campus contexts, contribute to the local environment, and simultaneously satisfy general education and technical graduation requirements. The program is not restricted to an elite group of highly qualified students but in fact is made

RISK MANAGEMENT

99

available to a majority of WPI students. However, being able to provide high quality off campus, and in most cases international, experiences for WPI students is not something that appeared suddenly, nor was it implemented casually. The complexity of offering experiences like these to most of our undergraduate body demands constant supervision and modification. Ongoing assessment at all of the various levels of operation has been a critical component of the program’s success and the quality of student experience. In conclusion, the GPP assessment processes were designed to evaluate several aspects of an extensive and fairly complex program. Results consistently show that GPP participants satisfy important educational objectives at higher performance levels than nonparticipants. Assessment results have regularly guided improvements and resource allocation for the on-campus experience. Future work will move more from the assessment level to the research level to answer key research questions: What sort of lasting intellectual, professional, and personal growth occurs? Does the experience prepare them well for a lifetime of learning? Can this short-term sojourn develop an appropriate level of cultural awareness world-mindedness? How do language skills, particularly the lack thereof, affect the quality of the learning experience? Do the outcomes observed transfer to new academic and other contexts postsojourn? How is self-efficacy affected by the sojourn? These are deeper questions requiring a multifaceted research program currently in development. 6.8 RISK MANAGEMENT As the number of WPI students going off campus increased, it became obvious that the university could not work in a vacuum to address risk management. It only took one perceived crisis in the making to bring the right players together from across campus to form a team to consider the risks associated with sending students away to complete projects. This risk management approach WPI employs involves both philosophical and operational aspects. The philosophical approach aims to identify, analyze, and manage risks, while the operational approach involves tailoring practical solutions for each site. The ultimate goal of this combination is to protect the students, the advisors, the program, and the institution. Part of the process of working toward managing risks was defining what “risk management” means to the University. The risk management team identified various exposures and measured them against WPI’s willingness and ability to withstand potential losses resulting from those exposures. The team then determined how to implement policies and practices to best control these identified risks with appropriate procedures. The resulting policies and procedures are reviewed each year.

100

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

A crucial part of managing to control identified risks is the training that WPI provides students and faculty advisors. The IGSD has developed an operational handbook for faculty advisors who are on site with the students. In addition to all of the information included in the students’ handbook, the faculty are provided with more information that they may need while in residence; included is a Crisis Management Plan that contains a detailed description of what to do and who to contact in the event of an emergency. Emergencies that are anticipated include such events as natural disasters, crimes that may be committed against a student, crimes that may be committed by a student, a student’s disappearance, sexual harassment, assault, and violations of the WPI’s Code of Conduct. Faculty advisors are provided with an extensive list of names and contact numbers for the WPI Crisis Management Team on campus. WPI expects faculty advisors to attend a full day of training prior to their departure for a project center; such sessions are held annually, and the training has evolved over time. Initially, a group of experienced faculty and professional staff met to develop a list of the outcomes WPI wanted off-campus faculty advisors to take away with them at the end of a one-day training session. All outcomes fit into three general areas: academic, interpersonal, and operational issues. Specific outcomes identified that did not fall within the academic realm included crosscultural issues, group dynamics, risk management, policies, time management, conflict management, self awareness of own cultural issues, and a category defined as “whole student advising.” The list revealed the need to engage other on-campus professionals with relevant expertise to help develop the training. In the first year, the director of counseling services, dean of student life, university risk manager, diversity officer, and director of academic resources—all experts in their respective areas—were invited to help develop the training needed to target the identified outcomes. By working with actual cases based on recent WPI experience, advisors preparing to embark on an offcampus experience were introduced to challenging situations and strategies to handle them. The cases were chosen to highlight issues proven important to a successful experience. The discussions were designed to engage all participants in small group work as they struggled with solutions. A panel of WPI professionals who deal with these issues while students are on campus responded to each of the cases and the solutions proposed. The design of that day’s training provided opportunities for collaboration and mentoring among all of the constituencies—two key activities identified early in the planning stages as critical to the success of the advisors. The model has continued to be one of collaboration and interaction, although the themes each year have shifted to accommodate areas of concern. For example, in 2007 the theme was developing a holistic approach to an

101

RISK MANAGEMENT

off-campus experience, and participants had the opportunity to think about the cultural aspects of going off campus and being more intentional about students’ growth throughout and beyond the experience. In 2008, discussion and interaction was focused on preparing advisors and students to deal with issues of different culture, racism, bigotry, poverty, and perceptions of personal safety and comfort in a new place, whether it be Boston or Bangkok, Worcester or Windhoek. The theme of the 2009 retreat was “Keeping Things in Perspective: Issues of Health and Safety While Off Campus,” as data gathered over the last few years dictated the need for a focus on these critical issues. Depending upon the theme, collaboration with offices across campus continues to prepare advisors for situations they almost certainly have not had to deal with on campus. Each year, administrative staff gathers feedback from the participants of the retreat to evaluate its effectiveness. A simple form is distributed and collected at the end of the day. The following prompts constitute the formal evaluation form: 1. List three things that you found valuable at this retreat. 2. List anything that you found unimportant at this retreat. 3. Identify anything that you, as a project advisor, may do differently as a result of having attended this retreat. 4. Make suggestions for future retreats Evaluation results for the last 5 years that the training has been offered are summarized in Table 6.7. For each year the number of participants or trainees is indicated—for example, in 2006, 26 faculty members were trained. The response rates on these evaluations have been quite high—averaging 81% over 5 years. The “actual number” refers to how many participants turned in a completed evaluation, for example, in 2007, 28 of the 32 trainees chose to submit an evaluation. The “potential number” of positive responses TABLE 6.7 Evaluation Results of Faculty Training Retreats 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

PN AN RR PN AN RR PN AN RR PN AN RR PN AN RR (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) No. of 26 participants No. of 60 good things No. of 60 unimportant

20

77

30

20

67

32

28

88

32

30

94

30

24

80

51

85

60

54

90

84

51

61

90

68

76

72

68

94

5

8

60

2

3

84

9

11

90

31

34

72

13

18

PN ¼ potential no. of responses, AN ¼ actual no. of responses, RR ¼ response rate.

102

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

and negative responses is provided (three times the “actual number”). For example, in 2006 there was potential for 60 “important” responses and 60 “unimportant” responses; however, there were in actuality 54 “important” issues and only 2 “unimportant” issues identified by the respondents. The high number of positive responses (items listed as “important”) versus the low number of negative (items listed as “unimportant”) suggests that there is high value perceived by those participating in the training for each of the years. In addition to measuring how satisfied participants are with the retreat, responses to item 4 solicit ideas for future retreats and help determine the focus of subsequent training. In this way facilitators are able to respond to needs identified by the advisors. In 2009, it was clear after reviewing incident data about off-campus incidents that it was time for another training session solely focused on health and safety. Table 6.8 illustrates the increase of incidents related to health and safety issues. In 2006–2007, a total of 13 incidents were documented; by 2008–2009 that number rose to 40, a trend that could not be ignored. In response to those data the retreat was organized around issues of health and safety while off campus. Cofacilitators included the IGSD’s Director of Global Operations, the Dean of Students, and WPI’s Compliance Officer, whose duties include university risk management. In addition to a review of the data presented above, strategies were presented and discussed with all participants about how to best mitigate and manage incidents of student misbehavior, medical emergencies, and other categories of concern. Resources that were utilized included Gerald Wilde’s Target Risk, the US Army’s model for risk assessment, and Cooper’s Colors—a useful graphic for depicting levels of awareness to risk. To help illustrate all of these issues, TABLE 6.8 Off-Campus Incidents Reported Over Three Academic Years 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

2006–2007 2007–2008

t sa

ul

t As

ul as

xu

al

tu ai ag

e rim

Se

ns

ts

Ac C

sa

nt de

em ad

su is el Tr

av

s

ic

es

or vi ha be

St

ud

en

H

ou

tm

si

is

ng

M

is

ed

su

ic

al

es

2008–2009

TRANSFERABILITY AND DIFFUSION

103

case studies were presented from actual occurrences from the past 3 months at WPI off-campus project centers. Participants discussed these case studies, first in small groups and then within the entire group. Different perspectives were shared as were strategies to deal with such things as a student gone missing, a broken arm due to participation in a recreational activity, muggings, inappropriate behavior within a housing facility, the importance of vetting housing, and so on. The completed evaluations indicated that use of these case studies was considered beneficial to the participants and that respondents valued the discussion of such issues. It was extremely helpful to hear newer approaches to handling questions of behavior that are less “knee-jerk” and more complex and educational. I now have more ideas about responding to and anticipating responses about how to approach behavior as well as students’ thinking about their actions. —Advisor evaluation comment from 2009 Annual Advisor Retreat By collaborating with WPI’s professional staff, the GPP has been able to develop a meaningful training program that empowers the faculty charged with leading student groups off campus in pursuit of academic credit. These professionals, who include the Director of the Student Development Center, the Director of Diversity & Women’s Programs, the Associate Treasurer, the Director of Risk Management, the Dean of Student Life, the Director of Minority Affairs, the Director of Health Services, the Director of Healthy Alternatives, the Director of the Academic Resources Center, and the Student Disabilities Coordinator, bring expertise from which the faculty can benefit. By using case studies based on previous incidents, it is possible to engage the faculty in significant discussions of what can and does happen while off campus. With a combination of recent incidents and discussion of other possible challenges, WPI is able to equip faculty leaders with strategies and resources for dealing with a wide range of nonacademic issues. 6.9 TRANSFERABILITY AND DIFFUSION Only recently has a global experience become widely regarded as highly desirable for engineering education; many institutions are just now creating such opportunities. Rigid curricula, cost, and lack of leadership have been cited as reasons for slow adoption. Some faculty believe international experiences are not possible for most engineering students; WPI’s program demonstrates

104

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: STUDENTS SOLVING REAL PROBLEMS AROUND THE WORLD

that is not the case. Accordingly, the GPP has had an impact on many other institutions. In recent years over 40 universities, 10 education abroad providers, and organizations such as NSF, Sigma Xi, and AAC&U have either invited WPI to their campuses and workshops or sent delegations to WPI specifically to learn about aspects of the GPP. The universities comprise a wide range of types and sizes, including MIT, Harvard, Rose-Hulman, Michigan Tech, Auburn, Lehigh, RIT, Olin, U. Arizona, and U. Minnesota. Furthermore, through participation in organizations such as NAFSA and The Forum on Education Abroad, WPI has become a leader in promoting responsible management of experiential study abroad, increasingly recognized as the most-effective form of study abroad. Some aspects of the program have already been adopted. The “Interprofessional Projects” program at Illinois Institute of Technology shows clear influence from WPI’s interdisciplinary projects, and WPI President Emeritus Edward Parrish was instrumental in the development of ABET’s EC 2000 criteria. Domenico Grasso, founding director of the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College, is a WPI alumnus, and it is perhaps no surprise that many aspects of that admirable program bear resemblance to WPI’s. Similarly, the founders of the Olin College of Engineering visited WPI multiple times while planning the College and have hosted presentations by WPI to understand the GPP fully. 6.10 CONCLUSION The challenges of the twenty-first century will require engineers with the leadership skills and wisdom to influence policy and improve the human condition. Future leaders in technology must learn to work effectively and collaboratively across both disciplines and borders to address the most pressing problems facing our world. International experiences will be a key component in preparing these future leaders. Through its Global Perspective Program, WPI has sent more engineering and science students abroad than any other US college or university, and in doing so has demonstrated that such initiatives can be scalable, sustainable, and at the heart of the curriculum. In addition to providing global experiences to over half the students at WPI, the program emphasizes critical thinking, research skills, analysis, persuasive writing, and open-ended problem solving, all key elements in the education of future leaders. In fact, the centrality of project work to the WPI curriculum is the key the Global Perspective Program’s success. Precisely because the program operates at the heart of the curriculum, rather than at its periphery, it has become a signature program for the university and an essential element of the institutional fabric: sought after by the student body, championed by the faculty, and stoutly supported by the administration.

REFERENCES

105

REFERENCES 1. R. Bhandari and P. Chow, Open Doors 2008; Report on International Educational Exchange. New York: Institution of International Education, 2008. 2. J. Herrington and R. Oliver, “An Instructional Design Framework for Authentic Learning Environments.” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 48, pp. 23–48, Sept. 2000. 3. J. S. Brown, A. Collins and P. Duguid, “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.” Educational Researcher, vol. 18, pp. 32–42, Jan–Feb 1989. 4. J. Dewey and R. D. Archambault. John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. 5. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. 6. “SAGE: Study Abroad for Global Engagement. Beyond Immediate Impact.” University of Minnesota, 2009. Available: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/projects/ sage/. 7. D. DiBiasio and N. A. Mello, “Multilevel Assessment of Program Outcomes: Assessing a Nontraditional Study Abroad Program in the Engineering Disciplines.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, vol. 10, pp. 237–252, Fall 2004. 8. P.W. Davis and N.A. Mello, “AWorld-Class Education, Last Word.” ASEE Prism, vol. 68, January 2003. 9. G. Loacker. Self Assessment at Alverno College. Milwaukee, WI: Alverno College Institute, 2000. 10. M. Mentkowski. Learning That Lasts, Integrating Learning, Development, and Performance in College and Beyond. Milwaukee, WI: Alverno College Publications, 2000. 11. D. DiBiasio, N.A. Mello and D. Woods, “Multidisciplinary Teamwork: Academic Practices and Assessment of Student Outcomes,” paper presented at Best Assessment Processes III Conference, Rose-Hulman University, Terre Haute, IN, April, 2000. 12. M. Besterfield-Sacre, L.J. Shuman, H. Wolfe, C.J. Atman, J. McGourty, R.L. Miller, B.M. Olds and G.M. Rogers, “Defining the Outcomes: A Framework for EC 2000.” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 43, pp. 100–110, 2000. 13. N.A. Mello, “Risk Management, Safety Issues and How WPI Meets the Interorganizational Task Force Good Practices for Health and Safety.” SAFETI OnLine Newsletter, vol. 3, no. 1, 2005. Available: http://www.globaled.us/safeti/ v3n1_mello.html. 14. R. Arreola, Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System, 2nd edn. Boston: Anker Publishers, 2000.

CHAPTER 7

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS SVETLANA NIKITINA and DAVID SPANAGEL

7.1 INTRODUCTION Are the liberal arts central or peripheral to educating leaders of science and technology of the twenty-first century? How and why should a robust humanities and arts curriculum be integrated into the polytechnic environment? We demonstrate in this chapter how, through serious engagement with the liberal arts, the particular culture of inquiry (which is essential for training scientists and engineers as described in Chapter 1) can be developed and sustained. We believe exposure to humanities and arts disciplines is not only intellectually valuable but is in fact indispensable to the goal of equipping engineering students for effective citizenship in today’s world. The challenges of the twenty-first century cannot be met by purely technical solutions, conceived or implemented in isolation from global social, environmental, political, and moral contexts. Therefore, it is essential that our students be given complementary sets of intellectual tools, and opportunities to interact with multiple sets of disciplinary perspectives and value systems, so they can cultivate the human skills they will need to grapple with all these challenges successfully. Since its inception in 1865, WPI has recognized and institutionalized the importance of the humanities in a variety of ways. Originally established as a Free Institute of Industrial Science amid the stresses and opportunities provided by the ongoing Industrial Revolution and an American Civil War, the Institute’s educational program focused initially on providing practical Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

107

108

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

experiences that would directly support commercial applications of electrical and mechanical engineering know-how. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, it had become clear to WPI’s leaders that success in industry requires a more sophisticated set of relationships among research, teaching, and commercial activities. Interestingly, the humanities were identified as a lynchpin for enabling these relationships. As a token of the broader intellectual demands WPI made on its students at the dawn of the twentieth century, the Class of 1879 generously endowed a fund in 1900 to support an annual prize for the best term paper written for the Departments of English, History, and Languages. Along with the adoption of the revolutionary WPI Plan in 1970, yet another reconfiguration of departments and requirements left the Humanities and Arts (HUA) Department as one of the largest and most important departments on campus, despite the relatively small fraction of undergraduates who chose to major in its subfields. At the same time, a so-called “sufficiency” project (individually advised by a faculty member from one or another of the humanistic disciplines) was made one of the three project experiences required of all WPI graduates. Over the years, the HUA requirement has become more rigorous with courses in more humanities and arts subdisciplines. The college recently approved a new structure, which differentiates between the depth and the breadth of concentration. Students can achieve depth in a wide array of humanities and arts fields of study (including art history, architecture, drama/theater, German, Spanish, history, literature, music, philosophy, religion, rhetoric, and writing). Employing more than 50 faculty members, the HUA department contributes more to the college’s intellectual life than disciplinary courses and original scholarship. HUA faculty members participate extensively in many campus-wide initiatives and core interdisciplinary programs such as the First-Year Experience (FYE), Writing Across the Curriculum, Interactive Media and Game Development (IMGD), and the Environmental Engineering major. HUA is also an active participant in WPI’s Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Global Perspective Program (IGSD)—running its own off-campus seminars and projects in England, Germany, and Morocco. Cross-campus collaborations continue to emerge, building strong bonds between humanistic and scientific disciplines, and engineering. The Humanities and Arts Requirement (now consisting of five courses and a culminating inquiry seminar/practicum) introduces students to the breadth, diversity, and creativity of human experience; fosters students’ ability to think critically and independently about the world; encourages students to reflect on their responsibilities to others in local, national, and global communities; and enhances students’ ability to communicate effectively with others in a spirit of openness and cooperation. Within their HUA required

INTRODUCTION

109

coursework, students have specific opportunities to “explore their own creativity” in music, theatre, or writing programs. Or, they can “study the complexity and diversity of the world through the study of art/architecture, history, foreign languages, literature, philosophy, or religion.” Today’s HUA curriculum is the result of a cyclical process of revision and ongoing assessment designed to foster “technological humanists,” which has been WPI’s core goal since 1865 [1]. Let us restate the central question: Why are the humanities and arts called to serve as a fundamental touchstone at an institution which is in the process of reinventing and redefining engineering education to face the challenges of the twenty-first century? As outlined in Chapter 1, the world clearly faces significant challenges in areas of leadership and advocacy, requiring creative responses to globalization and the communalization of knowledge. Knowledge transfer and increased interpersonal and intercultural cooperation require a far broader skill set than the traditional engineering program was ever designed to deliver. The culture of innovative inquiry that can produce an engineer or a scientist able to compete in the global economy and in global science can be cultivated only when the tools and avenues of such inquiry are constantly stretched and challenged to include wider frames of reference, broader cultural perspectives, and a longer-term view of consequences. At WPI, the problem of how best to foster these dimensions of innovation has become central to the work of the humanities and arts educators. These scholars are intellectually trained in complementary forms of interrogation and qualitative analysis, and are thus well positioned to engage in constructive dialogue with their colleagues in the sciences to build the culture of inquiry and to facilitate the development of broader perspective on issues, a wider search for answers, as well as stronger civic engagement and advocacy skills in students. Collaboration across technical scientific and humanistic fields enhances both intellectual enterprises. Exposure to humanities disciplines and the practice of the arts essentially expands the engineering student’s definition of what “knowledge” is, by offering alternative perspectives and various epistemological platforms from which to investigate technological or scientific problems. Through the interplay of ideas, approaches, and different ways of asking questions, students begin to view problems and solutions with a critical eye—one that is aware of the limitations of its view. Technological and environmental issues that the planet faces in the twenty-first century, such as those outlined in Chapter 1, require a multifaceted and nuanced approach. The humanities and arts train students to see and understand how rule and value systems operating within a given domain can sometimes be challenged technologically, philosophically, and politically. This complexity of vision is needed to find answers to messy real-world problems.

110

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

In their turn, scholars in the humanities and arts benefit from constructive partnership with engineering and science as well. Leading humanities scholars concerned about the rigor and relevance of research have been calling for more robust connections between interpretive efforts and active engagement with real-world issues. Stephen Greenblatt of Harvard, for example, has been a long-time proponent of “treating cultures as texts.” Greenblatt’s New Historicist approach is “based on the premise that a literary work should be considered a product of the time, place, and circumstances of its composition rather than as an isolated creation” [2]. Elaine Scarry, the Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value at Harvard’s English Department, also keeps a very keen eye on how literary theory and interpretive skill can profitably be applied to the most urgent issues in the world—war, electronic signaling, plane crashes, nuclear weapons, and pain experiences. Scarry believes the point of being an English professor is to answer the call to foster citizenship and involvement in the social world [3]. Unlike colleagues working within ivory towers of text-bound research, HUA scholars at WPI find themselves face to face with issues that matter in the real world. Interacting with such issues in the context of crossdisciplinary collegial instructional efforts serves to challenge and extend their knowledge base and to enhance both the rigor and the relevance of their scholarship. Not all humanists would accept this claim uncritically. Over the past six decades, a prevailing tendency to focus on in-depth study of text and methodical analysis of linguistic structures has defined a “postmodern” and “structuralist” approach to the pursuit of knowledge in the humanities, modeled to some extent on the natural sciences. Therefore, some scholars may fear that a focus on application somehow detracts from analytical rigor and takes away from conceptual learning in the humanities. But just as in science, where theory is bolstered and propelled by experiment and practical application, scholarship in the humanities can thrive through interdisciplinary cooperation with engineering and contact with urgent cultural issues. WPI’s record of teaching and research in the humanities demonstrate this convincingly. Not only is applied humanism more powerful than its theoretical version but it also results in a more rigorous conceptual understanding of the phenomena under study. For example, WPI students studying biocentrism and its philosophical antecedents in literature or philosophy classes find it much easier to communicate about it in a voice that is original and persuasive after they have been given a chance to track the dwindling of native species of plants and animals at the local Worcester Ecotarium, for example. Besides yielding more articulate conceptual writing, this experience often cultivates a more passionate commitment to environmental issues in general. The general idea of experiential learning is obviously not a new one in education. But institutions of higher education have not found it easy to

EXTENDING THE CONTEXT

111

incorporate this idea into the teaching of the humanities. Even the seminal ideas of John Dewey [4] and David Kolb [5], suggesting that experience and learning by doing is the key to all learning and concept formation, have not really been subjected to test or large-scale experimentation in the humanities. One comprehensive survey “Experiential Learning in Higher Education: Linking Classroom and Community” [6], for example, barely mentions humanities disciplines, focusing mostly on social sciences, technical disciplines, and professional fields. Thus, in its embrace of a broad humanistic base for the education of the engineer of the twenty-first century, WPI both provides opportunities for innovative work in the humanities and arts fields and at the same time adds value to the scientific and engineering offerings. The value it adds consists in extending the context and the toolkit for scientific and engineering endeavors, in cultivating the campus-wide culture of critical inquiry and civic responsibility, and in fostering advocacy and communication skills, all of which are essential for technological leadership in the new millennium. 7.2 EXTENDING THE CONTEXT Humanities inquiry extends the context of any engineering probe. It places technological problems into larger contexts of history, culture or belief system from which one may work toward a more informed and integrated solution. Before figuring out all aspects of the “how” it is crucial to understand the “why.” Why did the current state of affairs come about? Why is this issue so hard to resolve? What stands in the way of implementation of the solution or what explains the persistence of the problem? For example, many in the US today regard nuclear energy as a necessary, if not obvious solution to the challenge of meeting a growing global demand for energy consumption in the face of global climate change concerns [7,8]. But a massive shift to nuclear energy would be fraught with complications well beyond the complexities of atomic physics. In the US, no nuclear power reactor has been bought since 1973, despite the decreasing costs of nuclear electricity production [9,10]. This fact requires more than a technical explanation. Nuclear power has a history that matters. In one of WPI’s Great Problem Seminars (Power the World), first-year students investigate the relationships between historical, political, moral, and technical considerations that have combined to curtail radical expansion of nuclear energy production. Discussing the circumstances surrounding the initial scientific development of atomic energy (the events in Nazi Germany and the exodus of German and European scientists), these students see how the bomb was not just the product of science and engineering, but a cultural product of historical forces involving collective

112

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

political leadership and personal moral (or immoral) choices. Pursuing this story forward through time, they learn why the Cold War, a series of high profile reactor accidents, and anxieties about terrorism have persistently affected discussions of nuclear technologies. While reactor designs have dramatically changed over the last five decades of nuclear energy production, and dozens of reactors have been successfully commissioned in other parts of the world, several fundamental technical and social challenges remain: how to dispose of radioactive waste (or else safely store it for the duration of its hazardousness); how to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation (given capacities inherent in nuclear energy reactor technology); and how to effectively educate public opinion about improvements in reactor safety. Clearly, surmounting the obstacles to nuclear power will require that technical solutions be developed in tandem with substantial changes in public awareness and political discourse. Many humanities courses at WPI offer similar opportunities to examine contexts of other engineering or technological issues. EN2237 (American Literature and the Environment), for example, looks into historical and philosophical roots of the current environmental crisis and asks how religious and philosophical belief systems might have developed in our culture a pervasive sense of entitlement to manipulate natural resources even to the point of destruction. Without investigating the philosophical foundations of such beliefs and recognizing how deeply entrenched they are in Western culture, it is difficult for an aspiring mechanical, electrical, or environmental engineer either to find and implement sustainable technical solutions or to counteract the effects of unsustainable ones. Another significant area of historical and social investigation surrounds the process of industrialization. What was the historical and social order that produced the Industrial Revolution? Why and how did it lead to the environmental degradation we are now facing? In the Grand Challenges Great Problem Seminar, students engage in a heated debate prompted by reading McDonough and Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle [11] on whether the Industrial Revolution was a mistake, a wrong turn in human history, or whether it was a logical and robust product of capitalist economy. No matter which position students take, they confront the reality that history and social context are forces that have substantively shaped the course of technology in the past, and so are likely to mold it in the future. Through these kinds of critical discussions, students become better equipped to examine their own belief systems against the background of other perspectives on the issue when they are in the lab or later on the job. Only through such educational experiences can the foundation be laid for students (and alumni) to think of asking “why” questions before they get consumed by the details of solving the “how” questions.

EXTENDING THE CONTEXT

113

Courses in digital art offer direct opportunities for students to explore the present and future ramifications of going to an all-digital format of information sharing at the expense of the printed text. At a time when newspapers are struggling to stay in business, and online news has become the delivery method of choice for many consumers, it is important to ask what is being lost and what is gained through the advent of this new technology. If information is so malleable and can be easily changed to mislead the public, or to alter our perception of history, how does that change the nature of knowledge itself? Wanting to explore the liquidity of digital text (especially in terms of an Orwellian world where the past can be rewritten and the present redefined by anybody with access to the keyboard), one WPI student created a story that continues to change as it is read [12]. Through the creation of her own technology-based narrative, this student issued an important reminder that digital information is not static. The slick facades of new technology and accompanying gadgets need to be examined and their historical and social implications scrutinized. With such projects behind them, students preparing to enter fields where new technologies will be created become more keenly aware of “the bigger picture” implied by technological change. Just as it is important to consider the historical or philosophical antecedents of any issue, it is also essential to contemplate a larger view of the consequences of a technological solution. In a history of science course (HI3331—Topics in Science Technology and Society), for example, students specifically investigate the near- and long-term consequences of attempts to revolutionize warfare (or to alter the balance of power in international relations) through the application of some scientific expertise or technological innovation. The result of these case studies is a deeper insight into direct social impacts of technology when placed in the wrong hands. Students get to realize the heavy burden of responsibility associated with technological breakthroughs and hopefully carry this awareness into their future designs. Reading and discussing a pivotal critique like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (whether in an English course, a history course, or a Great Problem Seminar) is another way to sensitize students to the complexity of consequences of any human interference in nature [13]. What kind of philosophical, religious, cultural, and historical conditions could have produced the “arrogant” and shortsighted science that Carson was talking about becomes part of class discussion and debate facilitated by the humanities faculty. The book also offers students a real sample of doing science at its best: science that combines painstakingly thorough research with a sense of respect and advocacy for nature. Reflection on the roots and consequences of engineering actions provides more than a general backdrop for technological inquiry. This mode of thinking has potential to change the nature of the inquiry itself as it brings the students in touch with their fundamental beliefs about the world, and often prompts

114

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

future engineers to reconsider or alter the design of their experiment. Reading the present through the lens of past and the future, students become aware participants of their own cultural experience and education, which they begin to see as more open to transformative action. Through the search for points of connection and disconnection between then and now, physics and philosophy, students emerge not only as historically informed readers of classical texts but also as critical thinkers prepared to be engaged consumers of their own culture, and effective citizens who can contribute to the making of their own culture. 7.3 EXTENDING THE TOOLKIT New insights and ingenious solutions are often born at the intersection of several ideas, methodologies, or disciplines. Since the humanities disciplines are in the business of commenting on, critiquing, and contextualizing events, experiences, and phenomena, they naturally create platforms for interdisciplinary crossovers. In courses where larger cultural topics are examined, students become sensitive to the fact that knowledge produced and developed in one field can be extended, enhanced, or challenged by knowledge in another. They learn to recognize that engineering interventions, especially in a global economy, are conditioned and constrained by many factors outside of technology itself. Invention of a new fuel, synthesis of a new material, design of a new engine or battery, while fascinating acts of innovation in their own right, are thoroughly governed by such factors as economics, the environment, urban planning requirements, and political lobbying. The engineer of the twenty-first century needs to comprehend the impact of all these factors at all stages of the development and marketing of a new technology. Technological brilliance now relies heavily on economic, managerial, and political savvy for its shine, and it is training in the humanities disciplines that can bring those factors into focus. Epistemological sophistication is at the heart of what students gain in the humanities courses; they become aware of the inherent value of different systems of knowledge. This capacity to think beyond one’s discipline is developed in a variety of ways. Most directly, writing, rhetoric, and communication courses emphasize the importance of different conventions of disciplinary documentation and style. Students have a chance to think about and discuss the reasons for such distinctions and to appreciate stylistic and epistemological differences between mathematics and poetry, for example. Crossdisciplinary campus-wide initiatives and concentrations (e.g., FYE, IMGD, Environmental Engineering) offer opportunities for students to discuss and integrate different perspectives and disciplinary methodologies in their projects.

EXTENDING THE TOOLKIT

115

An example of such a project comes from the Power the World Great Problem Seminar. Four young women (Elizabeth Lapinel, Lisa Pugsley, Heidi Robertson, and Kayla Schutte) chose to investigate the long-term and longdistance effects of China’s accelerated development. Their project question (“Air Pollution in China: Is the US Responsible?”) could not be answered through chemical analysis or research into public health data alone. Their approach included the use of personal narratives, reconstructions of various historical and societal trends, together with investigation into the biochemistry of airborne pollutants and pouring over public health data. As a result, these four students found a way to embed a humanistic and social quest for justice in their application of other disciplinary knowledge (chemistry, public health, and medicine). Through their research, the students discovered a connection between the growth of coal burning in China and America’s large-scale outsourcing of manufacturing to China. This extraordinary humanistic call for moral economic responsibility and environmental justice became meaningful and productive because of crossdisciplinary thinking. But correlations “between emission levels and manufacturing” and the economic relationship between the two countries were not the only ones they established. Performing another disciplinary transfer, they tied economic and engineering realities to public health data (both from the US and China) to report that “chemicals and particles released from Chinese factories are absorbed into the air, and travel across the Pacific to the western United States. . .” They even found “that mercury originating in China is traveling to rivers in Oregon, where it concentrates in fish, making them unsafe to eat.” This fruitful multidimensional analysis led them to a larger conclusion with policy implications: “The United States have an economical, environmental and humanitarian responsibility to work with China to create viable and constructive emission standards” [14]. This research, while remarkable for what one might expect from first-year undergraduate students, is not unique. Humanities inquiry is generally bent on exposing the moral, social, and cultural implications of engineering interventions. Questions such as: Why should we care about the demise of rhinoceros? Why worry about genetic manipulation?—are not always raised in science classrooms or labs but they are picked up in literature, history, and philosophy courses at WPI. In a world where our ability to manipulate the human genome is far greater than our legal or philosophical ability to regulate and channel this knowledge in fruitful ways, these questions are essential to raise in students’ minds. The humanities disciplines place ethical issues in high relief. For despite the breakneck pace at which bioethics and biotechnology are growing hand in hand, questions of ethics are still generally peripheral or incidental to training in biology or bioengineering. A sampling of leading current bioengineering and biomechanics textbooks yields the

116

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

unsurprising result: if they discuss ethics at all, the topic is sequestered in a chapter at the end of the book, which is least likely to be read or treated as integral to the study of the field [15 (pp. 762–763, 969–970, 1334–1343), 16 (pp. 489–506),17]. Another compelling example of creative interdisciplinary thinking comes from the experiences of teaching and making music at WPI. While searching for the elusive underlying structure of music composition, one WPI music professor has explored mathematical and scientific theories of organization such as set theory, artificial intelligence, chaos theory, evolutionary algorithms, fractals, knowledge-based systems, complexity, and emergence theories. Indeed, he has always utilized and integrated technology as a natural component of music making and music analysis. By taking such an approach, student musicians are encouraged to develop deep knowledge in their technical disciplines (mathematics, biology, computer science, psychology, and engineering) and to bring that knowledge to bear on their performance and compositions. Through the convergence of disciplinary lenses, they begin to view music as the realization of scientific and mathematical relationships through sound. The Pythagorean approach to the art form opens possibilities for students to gain a rich understanding of music as ultimately predicated on understanding complex dynamical systems active in nature. Music alone cannot reveal the underlying forms and structures of life; but it helps to illuminate the importance of deeper scientific and mathematical insights and, as students discover, is enriched by them in turn [18]. In summation, art and music, literature and history, philosophy and theater courses are formative for future scientists and engineers because they help both to stimulate creative thinking (outside the disciplinary box!), to frame cultural and ethical questions, and to provide training in communicating scientific thinking on the moral and social implications of any given technology to the general public. Besides the rich and exciting experience of interdisciplinary investigation spanning several methodologies and toolkits, students who study the humanities and arts in conjunction with their technical work gain the experience of taking civic responsibility for their research, which puts them on the path of passionate pursuit of better technical solutions. 7.4 CULTIVATING THE CULTURE OF CRITICAL INQUIRY AND CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY John Dewey, the great American philosopher, psychologist, educator, and political theorist, observed a century ago that effective citizenship in a democracy requires the habit of critical thinking. If we look to our

CULTIVATING THE CULTURE OF CRITICAL INQUIRY AND CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY

117

educational institutions to cultivate critical thinking skills in our future citizens, it is necessary to design instructional environments that encourage, enable, and even require students to develop self-sustaining habits of inquiry. Effective citizens need to constantly reorganize what they “understand” in the light of new information, to apply learned concepts to real-world issues and situations, and to practice a high tolerance (verging on enthusiasm) for chances to engage with challenging ideas, alternative intellectual approaches, and diverse cultural perspectives. Dewey’s general warning that traditional forms of disciplinary instruction can easily cultivate narrow “habits of thought leading to inadequate and erroneous beliefs” pertains necessarily to the education of engineering students, especially for those individuals who may have chosen a polytechnic education out of a prejudicial impulse to abstain from a broader intellectual training in the liberal arts [19].

118

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

Reading novels, studying history or foreign cultures, discussing philosophical works or works of art, acting in plays that explore the range of human experience, are all ways to hone students’ interpretive skills, ethical judgment, and a sense of civic responsibility. Project-oriented work, practiced widely at WPI, adds a rich social dimension to learning. Problem- and project-based work helps students focus the issue and highlight its broader significance. Teamwork on a specific real-world issue collectivizes knowledge and further strengthens the culture of team and individual inquiry, which is essential for participation in a global economy. Teamwork is often productively used in HUA courses and seminars. Inquiry seminars (which are now the capstone experience for the HUA requirement) might entail work in teams to defend a particular point of view, to present a different perspective on a topic or book or to produce a digital narrative, which exercises both literary and digital expertise among team members. For example, in two of the HU3900 inquiry seminars (Environmental History and Technology in the World), students not only write individual critical book reviews but also collaborate in teams of three on the research and writing of history articles, all of which combine to form the facsimile of an entire “issue” of a professional journal. Multiculturalism on WPI’s campus is another support mechanism for developing multiple perspectives and a sense of global responsibility in students. International students comprise almost 10% of the undergraduate student body; they bring an incredible richness of cultural experience to class discussions and projects [20]. In addition, the various global learning initiatives (described in Chapter 6), further expose WPI students to a stimulating multiplicity of problems and solutions both at home and abroad. Although close study and critical reflection on texts and the investigation of broader cultural contexts prompt a wider perspective on the issue, this is not where the humanities’ role in shaping socially engaged scientists and engineers

FOSTERING ADVOCACY AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS

119

ends. WPI students are supported in taking a proactive stance on the issues that they work on. To make a transition from understanding biocentrism to practicing it, students in the Literature and the Environment course may not simply track a compromised species at a local nature park, but they might also engage in investigative reporting on industrial pollution, and then participate in writing a “call-to-arms” term paper which documents their experiential data and calls for immediate action upon it. Great Problem Seminars offer even more opportunities for sustained inquiry and civic action. These semesterlong courses build toward a culminating project that has to integrate a technological issue (of developing a better battery or transportation system) with addressing social challenges of its implementation (seeking economic and political support for it), stopping just short of taking actual steps toward making the proposed design a reality. In fact, project development in these seminars often includes initial steps toward action. Past projects have led students to meetings with campus officers to discuss specific plans for food waste reduction; proposing a campus composting initiative; and launching a Heifer site in Namibia where WPI already has a base of operation. Mere technological or text analysis prowess does not earn a passing grade in such courses. Instead, students must learn by combining technological insights with handling complex social and personal dilemmas (whether in ethical judgment, in knowledge transfer, or in creative collaboration). Concerned citizens (not just slightly older students) emerge from such courses—they ask “why” before they ask “how,” and are prepared to search wider and inquire longer for solutions that work on many levels, not just “on paper.” 7.5 FOSTERING ADVOCACY AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS Technological leadership in the interconnected world requires a fine-tuned ability to communicate your solutions to others and to advocate them persuasively. Failures of some sustainable technologies in the past (electric cars technology, for example) to gain public and corporate support are often the result of failure to advocate, not failure to innovate. One cannot lead in any field without the ability to touch deep human needs, and to communicate powerful visions well. Engineering and science are in urgent need of champions, public spokespeople, and advocates. Advocacy relies on the ability to ground technical arguments in a wider cultural and historical context, and to connect solutions to factors and ideas outside of a narrow field in which they emerged. Humanities and arts provide tools that are indispensable to both of these endeavors; they help contextualize scientific and technological phenomena and open new disciplinary perspectives on examining them. They also directly assist in developing skills engineering and science students need to

120

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

succeed: writing, public speaking, and collaboration across disciplinary boundaries. In particular, inquiry seminars and other writing intensive courses throughout the HUA curriculum are designed to develop each student’s ability to: communicate effectively, and to improve writing through instructor feedback and peer critique. This means WPI students encounter more writing assignments, produce more reflection pieces, and experience a continuous flow of presentations, reports, in-class debates, and online discussion boards. Both individual and collective writing and communication skills receive a thorough workout in these courses. Writing courses often focus on a specific topic (e.g., environment, technology), so that students can work on grammar and compositional issues while engaged in building a convincing argument on questions relevant to their technical interests. WPI is fortunate to have sophisticated and dedicated staff in the Academic Technology Center, the Center for Writing across Curriculum, and the Gordon Library; these professionals go to great lengths to support students in research, in understanding documentation issues, and in multimedia use. 7.6 CONCLUSION Humanities and arts scholars function in a somewhat unusual environment at WPI. The polytechnic context challenges them to be engaged in a more active dialogue with the sciences and applied fields—a situation, which offers rich opportunities for mobilizing productive synergies and for the development of the humanistic knowledge itself. Currently, the humanities disciplines themselves are experiencing pressures in academia, the roots of which might be traced either all the way back to the shift from natural philosophy to natural science as the dominant form of knowledge, or to the more recent postmodern “deconstruction” of the humanities as an authoritative form of knowledge. Regardless of whether one sees those roots as long or short, the reality is that the humanities and arts must recapture and reembody liberal education’s goal of fostering citizenship and social engagement. All too often, humanistic education and research at the postsecondary level is preoccupied with formal textual analysis for its own sake, so that serious scholarship risks being too self-referential, and too sheltered in its ivory tower away from real-life issues. Educational researchers have proposed several constructive approaches for tackling this crisis of relevance in the humanities: (1) overcome extreme specialization and formalism; (2) open a wider frame of reference through interdisciplinary crossovers [2,21]; and (3) reattach the humanities to the arts [22,23,24]. The polytechnic environment with its real-world orientation, rich offerings in the arts, problem- and project-based learning models, and

REFERENCES

121

many robust interdisciplinary initiatives, provides fertile ground for revitalizing the field of the humanities. As the humanities help explore historical roots or philosophical implications of technological solutions and point to valuable insights of the other disciplines to enrich the inquiry, and as they foster a sense of moral and civic responsibility and try to equip students with requisite tools for global communications and passionate advocacy, they also open new opportunities for original research and scholarship. WPI’s issue- and project-oriented culture, in which HUA functions, encourages critical engagement, and constructive (rather than deconstructive!) research; these conditions are ripe for revitalizing humanities scholarship itself. Contrary to fears that practical engagement might compromise conceptual learning, humanities scholarship and arts production are only enhanced by interface with experience and critical issues. The stakes in the humanities and arts education are just as high as in science, if not higher. If we cannot afford to have students fail in the application of trigonometry concepts, we definitely cannot afford to have them read Robert Graves’s poetry and still deem war as a rational means to resolve conflicts, or to have them read Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael and remain indifferent to animal extinction [25,26]. Embodied and enacted humanism is far more powerful than its theoretical counterpart, and it results in better conceptual learning as well. For “to know a poem in this sense is to see a world ‘through it,’ so that the world, far from receding, becomes intensely present as a whole, and as a part of one’s own self-perception, memory, affect. . .” [23]. It is the partnership of science, humanities, arts, and applied fields that help deliver such a world in WPI’s classrooms.

REFERENCES 1. Department of Humanities & Arts—Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “Humanities & Arts,” 2010. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/ HUA/index.html. 2. C. Gallagher and S. Greenblatt, Practicing New Historicism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. 3. E. Eakin, “Professor Scarry has a Theory.” New York Times, sec. SM, pp. 178–181, Nov 19, 2000. 4. J. Dewey, Experience and Education, vol. 10. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1938. 5. D.A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984. 6. J.A. Cantor, Experiential Learning in Higher Education: Linking Classroom and Community, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7, 1997. Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED404949.pdf.

122

FOSTERING CITIZENSHIP AND ADVOCACY THROUGH THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS

7. G. Cravens, Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy. New York: Knopf, 2007. 8. A.W. Crosby, Children of the Sun: A History of Humanity’s Unappeasable Appetite for Energy. New York: Norton, 2006. 9. L. Parker and M. Holt, “Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors.” U.S. Congress, Congressional Report Service, 2007. Order code RL33442. Available: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf. 10. B.K. Sovacool and M.A. Brown, Energy and American Society—Thirteen Myths. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007. 11. W. McDonough and M. Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things. New York: North Point, 2002. 12. M. Yovina, Momentary Substance. Worcester Polytechnic Institute undergraduate seminar project, 2008. Advisor: Joseph Farbrook. 13. R. Carson, Silent Spring. 40th anniversary edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002. 14. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “Undergraduate Studies Project Gallery First Year Experience (FYE),” 2010. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/ Undergraduate/FirstYear/gallery.html. 15. A. Atala, R. Lanza, R. Nerem and J.A. Thompson, Principles of Regenerative Medicine. New York: Academic Press, 2007. 16. S. Shien, P.C.Y. Chen and Y.C. Fung, An Introductory Text to Bioengineering, 2nd edn. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Company, 2008. 17. C.R. Ethier and C.A. Simmons, Introductory Biomechanics: From Cells to Organisms. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 18. F. Bianchi, Private Communication, 2009. 19. J. Dewey, How we Think. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1910. 20. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “Undergraduate Admissions, International Students,” 2010. Available: http://admissions.wpi.edu/International/index.html. 21. J.T. Klein, Humanities, Culture, and Interdisciplinary: The Changing American Academy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005. 22. R.E. Scholes, The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998. 23. K. Spellmeyer, Arts of Living: Reinventing the Humanities for the Twenty-First Century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003. 24. K.D. McBride, Visual Media and the Humanities: Pedagogy of Representation. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 2004. 25. R. Graves, Poems About War. Kingston, RI: Moyer Bell Books, 1990. 26. D. Quinn, Ishmael. New York: Bantam/Turner Book, 1992.

CHAPTER 8

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE FRED J. LOOFT and YIMING (KEVIN) RONG

8.1 INTRODUCTION “With a single vote of the faculty [in 1970], WPI became a completely different kind of institution,” [1]. The “different kind of institution” envisioned at that time included a requirement that all WPI undergraduates complete at least two major projects as part of their graduation requirements. The first project, typically completed in the third year of study, was designed to “challenge students to relate social needs or concerns to specific issues raised by technological developments.” Details and further information on this remarkably unique requirement—particularly among engineering students—can be found in Chapters 2 (One World), 4 (Holistic Education), and 6 (Global Citizenship). The second project, known as the Major (area) Qualifying Project, or MQP, was designed to challenge students to “solve problems or perform tasks in the major field with confidence, and [to] communicate the results effectively” [2]. Below, we provide a detailed description, review, and discussion of the fourth year project requirement known as the Major Qualifying Project, or MQP. Topics covered will include a description of the requirement, implementation paradigms, challenges and opportunities, and anticipated future improvements to the MQP. Since the MQP at WPI is almost universally used to satisfy what is commonly referred to as the ABET “culminating major design experience” or simply “capstone project,” we will use the terms capstone and MQP interchangeably in our discussions. In doing so, however, we caution the reader not to confuse a typical course-based implementation of the ABET

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

123

124

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

capstone requirement with the WPI graduation requirement for a significant project in a student’s major field of study (i.e., the MQP).

8.2 THE MAJOR QUALIFYING PROJECT DEGREE REQUIREMENT According to the WPI catalog there are four broadly defined requirements for graduation: . . . .

Humanities and Arts requirement, Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP) requirement, Major Qualifying Project (MQP) requirement, and Individual program Distribution Requirements.

Each of the qualifying projects is expected to represent at least nine credits (three courses) of project work. The MQP in particular is expected to “demonstrate application of the skills, methods, and knowledge of the discipline to the solution of a problem that would be representative of the type to be encountered in one’s career.” Further, the MQP project team students are expected to select a project that complements the individual student educational programs, “paying particular attention to the interrelationships that will exist between the bodies of knowledge represented by courses, independent studies, and (any preparation) projects” [3]. It is important to remember that at WPI the MQP is part of a plan that was developed in the 1960s and implemented in the early 1970s to fundamentally change the structure of higher education by melding concepts such as teamwork, independent learning and qualifying projects in a comprehensive, projects-based undergraduate educational program. The point here is that while capstone undergraduate engineering projects are now commonplace, a focus on projects-based education, coupled with a real-world emphasis, has been a cornerstone of the WPI undergraduate educational plan for more than 35 years. Further, our two qualifying projects are required of all WPI students, not just those in ABET accredited departments. 8.2.1 Relation to ABET Criterion Five Requirement The ABET Criterion five requirement is simply stated as: Students must be prepared for engineering practice through a curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating appropriate engineering standards and multiple realistic constraints. [4].

MQP IMPLEMENTATION

125

Within the context of this requirement, individual institutions define and justify the extent and format of the experience that is used to satisfy the ABET requirement. It has long been WPI’s contention that the vast majority of students who complete the MQP more than satisfy the ABET capstone requirement. Indeed, when a student completes the MQP, a Completion of Degree Requirement (CDR) form is filed with the registrar by the project advisor. The CDR has a check off box on it for the advisor to signify that the project/student has in fact met the ABET “major design experience” requirement. 8.3 MQP IMPLEMENTATION MQP activities can encompass research, development, and application; can involve analysis or synthesis; can be experimental or theoretical; can emphasize a particular subarea of a major or combine several interdisciplinary areas; and can be individual or more likely team based. Further, in contrast to coursebased capstone projects, WPI students seeking to satisfy the MQP requirement have a wide range of negotiated terms and opportunities available to them, covering the full academic year and summer. Fortunately, in spite of the breadth of implementation and topic possibilities, there are a few strategies for completing the MQP that can be described, which encompass most MQP activities from registration to final report development and submission. 8.3.1 Registration Paradigms The traditional project paradigm is for student team members to register for some portion of the total project credit (9cr) in each of the four academic terms. However, it is becoming more common for student team members to complete the entire project requirement in a single term, registering for a full nine credits (three course equivalent) in one term. This approach is primarily used by students who satisfy their capstone project requirement at one of the many off-campus and/or corporate project centers, described in more detail below. Less common are other schedules where teams of students register for various amounts of credit in order to complete the MQP requirement in one semester (AB or CD terms), complete the project requirement over the summer (E term), or other variations that meet specific student registration, scheduling, or sponsor constraints. 8.3.2 Project Execution 8.3.2.1 Project Team Solicitation and Formation Capstone projects can generally be divided into those that are completed on campus and those that are completed off campus. Off-campus project opportunities are, in turn,

126

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

generally associated with a center and many are residential. Students interested in working at a project center (examples provided below) typically apply to a center in the fall of their third year, are interviewed, and are eventually selected to participate in a center. These students usually have little control over who their team members will be but are given some choice as to the project they will work on based on a list of provisional projects developed at each center at the time of student selection. For on-campus projects WPI maintains an online database of faculty and corporate projects. Individual departments may also maintain their own database as well. In the spring of the third year of study, students are encouraged to review the proposed projects and discuss the projects they are interested in with the indicated faculty sponsor. Unlike off-campus projects where the teams are typically created by the faculty advisor, students who seek to complete their MQP requirement on campus often form their own team. Students, however, need not have formed a team—in which case the faculty advisor will help create the team by selecting an appropriate number of students for a project based on student backgrounds. This flexible negotiation between faculty advisor and students, team formation, and eventual registration for a project takes place in C and D terms of the junior year. Finally, students and student teams are encouraged to discuss their own oncampus project ideas with potential faculty advisors. Faculty is of course free to recommend changes to the proposed ideas(s), agree to advise the project— or not. Although there is significant variation across campus, a typical project team is composed of 2–3 students and a faculty advisor. Some, but only a relative few, projects are completed by individual students while others are completed by teams perhaps as large as 15–30 students depending on how one defines the team. For example, in recent years our interdisciplinary nanosat and spaceflight payload design projects have include as many as 20–30 students from multiple departments working on the design of a payload, with multiple smaller teams of 2–3 students responsible for individual aspects of the technical payload design. 8.3.2.2 Project Advising A few points are worth noting on this topic since quality project advising is critical to a high-quality student experiences. First, every full time, tenure track WPI faculty member is expected to act as an MQP advisor to one or more projects each academic year. In order to become well versed with the procedures and best practices involved in capstone project advising, new faculties are encouraged to coadvise with veteran advisor(s) one or more projects in the first few years of employment. The concept of all faculty being involved in faculty advising is likely in contrast to the more common course-based solution to the ABET requirement where

MQP IMPLEMENTATION

127

only a few faculty in each department are responsible for a class full of capstone students. Second, individual advisors set their own schedules for meeting with project teams. The most common approach is to have at least one formal weekly meeting, and many more informal meetings between the advisor(s) and team members. Additionally, on-campus project teams often work in the laboratory of the mentor and, as a result, can be in nearly daily contact with their advisor(s) and graduate students who are working in the laboratory. Third, off-campus capstone projects are advised a bit differently. For residential off-campus projects, a faculty advisor may be in residence for the duration of the project period and have sole responsibility for daily, evening, and weekend meetings with the student teams. For residential centers without an on-site faculty advisor, a faculty advisor is usually present during the start up week and final (project presentation) week. For all centers, residential or otherwise, the industrial project mentor generally serves as the primary project advisor and is in daily communication with the team. Fourth, with the increase in interdisciplinary projects (robotics, autonomous vehicles, space flight systems, etc.) it is not unusual for a project team to be coadvised by two or more faculty. While time intensive and perhaps not particularly time efficient, it does lead to a project that is advised by the experts in the individual focus areas of the project students. 8.3.2.3 Student Preparation and Project Proposal Experience dictates that students write a proposal as their first activity of the MQP. In so doing, the students will perform background research to understand the problem, learn to explain the problem in a clear and well-defined manner, and start to learn material that they will need to know to successfully complete the project. A typical proposal will include: (i) a review of the current state of the art as it relates to the problem or potential solutions, (ii) previous solutions (if any) to the project problem, (iii) a clear statement of the problem to be solved, (iv) constraints on solving the problem (e.g., safety, technical, material, ergonomic, economic, manufacturability, environmental operation, and so forth), (v) a high-level system description of the proposed solution(s), and (vi) a time line with critical deadlines noted. Our experience shows that there are a few key aspects of the proposal that will enhance the usefulness of the proposal if well done.

128

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

Detailed Requirements: The project requirements need to be stated in terms of quantifiable metrics that can be used to determine the success of the final project. For example, a requirement for a system design that “must be as fast as possible” is not particularly useful or measureable. By contrast, a statement such as “a minimum operational clock speed of 200 MHz” or “lift 20 kg in 1 min 3 s” is measurable—there is no ambiguity in whether the goal is met at the end of the project. Teams should also be required to justify the metric, perhaps by describing a trade study (in terms of economic considerations, technical sophistication, custom versus COTS, etc.). Finally, requirements need to encompass (as appropriate) safety, reliability, cost, aesthetics, and other project-specific factors. Background: A detailed review of previous solutions is critical. The proposal should address questions such as: What has been previously attempted? What solutions are currently available? What are the opportunities for an improved design? Resources: A significant advantage of a year long project is that resources can almost certainly be obtained within the constraints of the project development schedule. However, it is important that the proposal identify, to the extent possible, the resources needed. Part of the resource identification goal is to also generate a detailed budget—subject to departmental and/or sponsor constraints. The team needs to keep in mind that resources may include space, materials, software, computational facilities, data from an outside source, and other items that are needed to solve the project problem. System Designs: Once the problem is well understood, defined, and bounded by realistic constraints, the team should identify multiple solutions to the problem. The key here is to identify general solutions to the problem, without detailing which solution should be implemented. Knowledge: In the process of developing and comparing concept system designs, the students are encouraged to identify what they must learn on their own to ultimately select the best system design/solution. For example, a recent GPS-based satellite navigation system was proposed and implemented that, with input from the project advisor, required the use of a Kalman filter to minimize phase error measurements. This, in turn, required that the students teach themselves the theory and practice behind the use of the filter [5]. Schedule: Finally, the team should include a schedule that incorporates all pertinent academic year deadlines, graduation deadlines, and other deadlines that impact project completion. For example, many faculties

MQP IMPLEMENTATION

129

require a final project report at least 3 weeks prior to the final electronic submission deadline to allow time for a thorough final review. Similarly, there may be other deadlines imposed based on the need to achieve specific project objectives. Failure to achieve a milestone is then, of course, a clear indicator of a problem that needs to be addressed. 8.3.2.4 Core Project Work Activities during this phase of the project are a function of the type of project undertaken and may include laboratory experimentation, software development, signal measurements, device design and analysis, construction of a product or device, performance evaluation, life cycle determination, accuracy measurements, safety evaluations, and so forth. Core project work should also include learning skills typically needed by those employed by the corresponding industry; the examples might include the following: . . . . .

learning how to use, configure, and safely operate a CNC machine; learning the proper procedures for the use of an electron microscope; learning how to develop prototype high-speed printed circuit boards and systems; learning and using industry standard software for FE, VLSI, antenna modeling, or other types of state-of-the-art design and analysis; or even learning the accepted protocol for a biological experiment approved by the institutional review board (and perhaps writing the request to the board for approval!).

8.3.2.5 Writing the Final Report: Support and Process Every MQP team is required to write a detailed and comprehensive final project report. This presents an opportunity to stress professional documentation standards, whether they are accepted practices detailed in any one of the number of different style books or even specified as if the team was submitting a detailed research proposal or journal manuscript where the style and format are detailed and easily obtained. 8.3.2.6 Oral Presentation WPI has for many years designated a Project Presentation Day in D term when no classes are held and when MQP teams are expected to present their results. Both on- and off-campus teams make short, professional presentations of their project goals and objectives, methods, analysis and design, and results. In many departments, those judged to be the best are asked to participate in a follow-on combined written/oral project presentation competition to determine the best projects of the year for each department.

130

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

8.3.2.7 Finishing Up As explained on the WPI projects website [6], . . . students must submit their completed project report to the project advisors. Students are also required to submit a copy of the document to the participating off-campus organization sufficiently prior to the end of the term so that proprietary and confidential information in the report can be identified and removed.

All finished reports must then be converted to a PDF file and submitted to the registrar and to the WPI library through the E-Projects online submission process. Once approved by the advisor, the report is made available to the public through the WPI library online search and archiving system (below). Detailed guidelines and checklists are available to both students and faculty to simplify the submission and approval process (e.g., screen capture, below).

8.3.2.8 Grading Standards The following rubrics have been developed and endorsed by WPI faculty to guide grade assignment for project work. A (Excellent): Delivered work exceeds all project goals/requirements. The group has shown strong evidence of independent and excellent work well above normal standards. B (Very Good): Meets all project goals/requirements, is high-quality work, and the group has shown good, fairly independent effort during the project. C (Acceptable): Essentially meets all project goals/requirements. NR (No Record): Does not meet all project goals/requirements.

MQP IMPLEMENTATION

131

NAC (Not Acceptable): Project work is not acceptable. [This grade is reserved for performance that is unacceptable for credit. It means that a student’s performance (or lack of) has seriously impeded group progress, or it has embarrassed the advisor, the project sponsor, and/ or WPI.] While the above-approved guidelines are subject to faculty interpretation, many departments also provide faculty and students with additional guidelines and recommendations for making grade assignments. The reader will notice that WPI does not assign below average or failing grades. Students can, however, be assigned an NAC grade which shows up on their transcript for work that is truly unacceptable for credit. 8.3.3 Project Support and Resources As might be expected of an institution focused on projects-based education, there are a number of programs and centers that have evolved over time to support project activities. A few of them are listed below. .

Office of Projects Administration: The Projects Administration staff in numerous ways helps faculty develop, innovate, and advise projects. For example, the staff is critical in supporting project center budgets, assessing and mitigating off-campus project center risks, managing emergency procedures and related health care issues as needed, providing support to off-campus advisors, and managing all aspects of program advertising and student applications/selections. Further, the Projects Administration office maintains extensive online support material for students and faculty that address issues such as starting a project, how to write a project proposal, confidentiality and human subject issues (if applicable), and how to submit a final project through the library eProject Submission system. Other support functions provided by the Projects Administration staff include the following; – sponsor meetings to share project advising best practices, share outreach and development experiences, help understand student learning styles, and even inform faculty of various WPI and legal requirements, – sponsor annual risk management retreats to train faculty in risk management awareness, – if a situation develops (medical, infrastructure, others), the staff responds in a timely manner and both makes recommendations to the center advisor(s) how to handle the problem and, if needed, manages resources to address the problem and create a safe and appropriate outcome, and

132

.

.

.

.

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

– work with faculty who are developing a new center, anywhere in the world, to address issues such as travel and on-site risks, housing, transportation planning, emergency procedures, local support systems (hospitals, embassies, etc.) and other critical management infrastructure factors associated with an off-campus project site. Center for Communication Across the Curriculum (CCAC): The mission of this center is to “improve the written, oral, and visual communication of WPI students and to promote writing as a tool for learning in all disciplines.” The CCAC staff is critical in supporting student writing efforts, scheduling individual tutoring and group workshops to help team members become better writers and presenters, and providing extensive online resources for project teams. Academic Technology Center (ATC): The ATC is divided into four service groups: Technology for Teaching and Learning, Campus Media Service, Media Production Services and AV Systems Engineering. For projects, the ATC is the primary source for technology associated with presentations, imaging, satellite connections (e.g., remote meeting support across time and space) and AV engineering when needed in support of project activities. WPI Collaborative for Entrepreneurship and Innovation (CEI): This collaborative provides support to student teams seeking to capitalize on their project results in terms of, for example, selling their ideas or moving on to the next step of forming a company based on their project work. Specific aspects of the CEI that are of value to project teams and mentors include entrepreneur mentoring and networking, and workshops on topics as diverse as inventing, small business legalities, marketing, and business planning. Center for Educational Development and Assessment (CEDA): CEDA’s mission is founded on the basic beliefs that (i) good teaching and project advising can be learned and improved upon, (ii) technology is a useful tool when coupled with a sound educational pedagogy, and (iii) meaningful assessment is crucial to improvements to teaching and learning. Representative concrete actions undertaken by CEDA include: organizing new faculty mentoring programs, organizing and conducting skill development workshops, and helping with the development of assessment tools for classroom and project activities.

8.4 PROJECT CENTERS The concept of an MQP project center is that of advisors and students working together on a cluster of projects with the support of a sponsor. Center

PROJECT CENTERS

133

operations range from residential, one term, on site (e.g., London, Silicon Valley, Nancy France, China) to one-term commuting (Lincoln Labs, Gillette) and even on-campus corporate sponsored with weekly visits to the corporate site (General Dynamics). A complete list of the MQP centers offered in the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 academic years is shown below.

Below, we briefly describe a few of our centers followed by a short discussion of how these centers are sustainable, what the sponsor benefits are, and related issues. 8.4.1 Lincoln Laboratories WPI has had a project center sponsored by MIT Lincoln Laboratories (LL) since 2002. To generate students’ interest in the center, LL personnel visit WPI in the fall of the preceding project year and make presentations to student focus groups. Subsequently, students from ECE, ME, CS, Physics, and MA apply, are interviewed and reviewed, and eventually about 15 are selected to participate in center projects. The selected students are assigned to projects composed of two or three students who then work full time, on site, on their assigned project in the first term of their senior year (A term). Since Lincoln Labs (LL) is relatively close to WPI, the students commute on a daily basis via a bus provided by LL. Like all project centers, it is desirable for LL project students to be properly prepared prior to full-time project work. The students selected for LL were initially prepared for their LL experience by requiring them to attend a preparation project, known as the Preliminary Qualifying Project (PQP) in the last term (D) of their junior year. Over time, this requirement has been dropped because many of the students now work as interns at LL during the summer preceding their project work. Logistically, these students are often assigned to internship topics that are related in some way to their A term capstone topic and are also grouped with some of their own student team members during the internship. Although not all selected students are offered internships, and not all accept when offered, a sufficient number of students

134

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

participate in the summer internship program that it was decided to drop the PQP requirement and instead rely on the experienced gained during the summer by student interns.

8.4.2 Wall Street and London The Wall Street/London project centers are unique because of their focus on financial, banking, and investment project topics. Students interested in these centers apply in the fall of the preceding year, and are subsequently interviewed, selected, and assigned to project teams for participation in on-site

PROJECT CENTERS

135

project work in the second term (B) of the senior year. Project opportunities exist for many different types of majors, including CS, ECE, Physics, MA, Management IT, Management Industrial Engineering (IE), Engineering Management, and other majors. Sample capstone projects include the following. .

.

.

At Lehman Brothers, a CS student helped to automate a system to display risks associated with lending and to display specific risks associated with different credit situations. At JP Morgan, a CS student and a management student focused on data contamination. The CS student focused on the software side of the contamination issue. The management student focused on the source of the contamination (data entry, software, network, or hardware) and ways to alleviate this in the future. The JP Morgan project for 2007 focused on grid technology and involved two students from ECE. In London, a team of ECE students worked on the design and implementation of an reconfigurable FPGA system that could be used to significantly speed up the analysis and modeling of certain computationally intensive financial studies.

Unlike other centers, Wall Street/London teams tend to be composed of only two students, involving around 10–12 students total, with 3–4 in London and the remainder on Wall Street. These projects have proven to be sustainable but, similar to other project centers, are highly dependent on the relationships built over time between the WPI faculty involved in these projects and the Wall Street/London individuals, often alums, who work at the companies that sponsor the projects. It is interesting to note that the preparation course for these, predominantly engineering and science, students, involves learning about financial markets and investing, and all forms of money transactions including stocks and bonds—the language of financial markets and institutions. 8.4.2.1 Gillettee The Gillette South Boston Manufacturing Center (SBMC) is their largest production facility and is also home to their principal R&D and Engineering groups. Gillette has been sponsoring primarily mechanical engineering capstone projects for the past 12 years. These projects tend to be machine design problems involving mechanism analysis and design, materials considerations, stress and deflection analysis, and dynamic modeling. Project topics vary from year to year and are typically defined in August of the year to be executed. These projects run in B-term with students commuting most weekdays to Gillette in Boston. A preparation course is required in A term to prepare for the intensive activity during the 7 weeks on site. During the preparation course,

136

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

Professor Robert Norton, the Gillette Project Center director and an internationally known mechanical engineering design book author, tasks the student teams with learning the details of the machine or part of a machine that Gillette has identified as problematic. To get started during the preparation project, the team members create a very detailed CAD drawing of the machine/component. Subsequently, they create a dynamic model and as time permits, perform a finite element analysis (FEA) of the machine/component. The first few days of on-site project work involves making instrumented measurements that can be used to modify the dynamic model so that it exactly matches the observed behavior that needs to be improved or fixed. Over the next several weeks of on-site project work, each student team works diligently to propose and analyze multiple solutions to the problem and, once an acceptable solution has been found, implement the solution with the support of the Gillette engineering staff mentors. Finally, once the change is implemented additional measurements are made to determine if the machine performance matches the predicted improvements. Perhaps one in three of the suggested improvements is eventually permanently implemented by Gillette. From the Gillette perspective, it is clear that the advantages are that they obtain solutions to their problems and excellent engineering candidates. From the WPI perspective, like most corporate project centers, the students get to work on real problems with real machinery and design constraints, with real engineers (often WPI grads themselves), and gain priceless hands-on experience. 8.4.2.2 Silicon Valley Run in C term, the Silicon Valley (SV) project center provides one-term project opportunities for CS, ECE, and Interactive Media and Game Development (IMGD) majors. A preparation course is run in the previous B term to familiarize the students with their assigned projects. Recent project sponsors include SRI International, eBay, and NVIDIA as well as many smaller companies. Several project center students have taken full-time positions with the sponsors and with other companies in Silicon Valley. The project center coordinator, Prof. David Finkel (CS) notes that one of the particularly valuable aspects of the SV projects is that the student team members have to work with other engineers and corporate personnel in ways that would not normally be encountered if completing an on-campus project. Specific examples include verifying the legality of using noncorporate generated software in a potential product release, working with the corporate web design groups to ensure standards for corporate branding are met, addressing quality assurance issues with QA personnel, and even working with industrial engineers and others to ensure that the usability of a product meets the standards of the company.

PROJECT CENTERS

137

8.4.2.3 China The MQP in China program is the largest international off-campus senior project center and is a cooperative arrangement between WPI and Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST). Since its inception in 2005 when 4 students participated in center activities, the center has grown to 21 students in 2009. In general, developing technical communication and social understanding has been an integral component of all of the China projects. The student projects afford all participants an effective means of breaking the cultural and social barriers and bringing people together with different backgrounds. WPI students, in particular, learn how to coordinate with their international teammates both in technical and cultural settings focused on real-world problem solving, and the ways of doing business and solving problems in different cultural environments. During the time they are conducting their projects, our students not only gain more understanding of the solution of technical problems but are also challenged to work with and learn from engineers who have different ways of approaching problems, all while practicing teamwork and leadership in an unfamiliar culture and a different social environment. All China Project Center projects are completed during the summer (E term). Preselected senior and junior students travel to China, work with HUST senior engineering students in mixed teams, and conduct real-world research projects sponsored by local companies and/or US/foreign companies in China (e.g., Caterpillar, Saint Gobain, Amphenol, and CIS). All projects are coadvised by WPI and HUST professors. The intellectual focus of the projects typically involves solving technical problems related to international design and manufacturing operations. An example project would be grinding technology where the students design and implement, on specific grinding machines, processes for high-speed surface finishing in China. The students work with a partner company and engineers in China to specify the requirements, formulate the problem, propose alternative solutions, implement the design and conduct testing. Another example project is the implementation of lean manufacturing principles in a local Chinese company for optimal operation of production. For each project, at least one engineer from the sponsoring company serves as an industry mentor, participates in group meetings, provides project background and technical information, and helps the students define the problem and verify the solutions. In a process similar to other project centers, the China Capstone Program involves multiple steps to achieve a successful project experience. Project Identification: The center directors work with potential corporate project sponsors to clarify the target and scope of each project as a draft project description.

138

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

Student Selection and Team Formation: Students apply to the China Capstone project Center and are individually interviewed, selected, and formed into teams (3–4 students typically) based on their specific project interests, background courses, and other selection factors. Project and Cultural Preparation: Selected students are required to register for a preliminary qualifying project (PQP) where the student teams conduct literature reviews and learn the necessary technical, cultural, and informational project background. During this PQP the students also begin to communicate with their Chinese partners and coadvisor(s). The culmination of the PQP is a research proposal that is made available to all participants and presented during a formal oral presentation period at the end of the PQP. On-Site Project Period: The students travel to the HUST campus and live in HUST housing. While on site, each team is expected to work diligently on their project, write a report, and make a professional presentation to their sponsors before returning to Worcester. The students are coadvised by both WPI and HUST professors as well as mentored by engineers from the sponsoring companies. Project Impact and Value: The major impact of the projects is expected to be both the development and growth of highly qualified young professionals and the technical results of the projects which, combined with dual cultural creativities and intellectual achievements, will ensure lasting results. The participating students are valued by US companies because of their significant international experience. Upon return to WPI, all China Project Center students are required to participate in the annual WPI Project Presentation Day to convey their project results to a general audience and to excite the next generation of participants. Many of the China Project Center students also serve as Global Ambassadors to help recruit students to the Global Perspective Program. The China Project Center also includes an exchange program with HUST, which gives WPI the chance to host about 10 HUST students who come to WPI and complete their senior projects with US companies over a 7-week period. This program provides an opportunity for WPI students as well as the engineers from local companies, who may not have the chance to go to China, to work with HUST students or to learn from their presentations about their ways of thinking in the formulation of problem, approaching alternative solutions, and the way of teaming up for a common goal of solving problems. It is also a chance for WPI students to learn about Chinese culture through social communication and activities, and at the same time to introduce the HUST students to American customs.

PROJECT CENTERS

139

8.4.2.4 Nancy, France In the Chemical Engineering department, students have the opportunity to complete their MQP in Nancy, France at the l’Ecole Nationale Superieure des Industries Chimiques (ENSIC), a research center composed of five separate laboratories focused on the physical chemistry of macromolecules, the physical chemistry of reactions, the thermodynamics and separation processes, and chemical engineering sciences. Projects are chosen based on consideration of the interests and majors of the applicant students. While fluency in French is not required to participate in this center, preference may be given to French-speaking students and all students are strongly encouraged to study French as a way to enhance their learning and living situation. 8.4.2.5 Civil/Environmental Engineering There are two notable project center activities supported by the Civil/Environmental Engineering department. First, for many years the departments has run an on-site center in Edmonton Alberta with the Stantec Consulting Corporation. Annually, approximately 6–8 students divided into 3–4 teams work on various sustainability projects for the host company. Second, as a result of a recent outreach opportunity, a new center in Panama was started in C term 2010 with a preparation course the previous B term. Like most centers, this new opportunity was the result of alumni networking and the identification of opportunities for civil/environmental majors to gain real-world experience in a unique location. 8.4.3 Sustainability Why should a sponsor undertake the support of an MQP team and why should WPI accrue the cost in terms of time and money to support off-campus centers to the extent that we have? In effect, the answer to these questions goes to the heart of the sustainability issue. Program sustainability generally reduces to providing tangible benefits to the participants and the project sponsors. These benefits include .

. .

a way to gain real-world engineering/science/math experience with constraints and requirements that are entirely representative of realworld decisions, processes, and issues; usually at a state-of-the-art facility with access to equipment and experts not necessarily found on campus; addressing issues such as usability, QA, and others that are not normally encountered during the execution of on-campus projects; and

140 . .

.

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

a way to identify and hire the best employees the sponsor can find; an ability to have students work on projects that of interest but are also back burner and thus not likely to affect any other project if not successfully completed; and even an opportunity to have a team address a problem without having preconceived ideas of how to solve the problem or what is, or is not, technically, organizationally, or operationally possible.

An additional factor that is critically important to center sustainability and desirability is the following. .

Committed Mentors: Corporate advisors who enjoy mentoring students are likely to repeat the experience. Indeed, it has been our experience that an excellent project experience—meaning value to the sponsor in terms of professional and quality project output, and excellent employee candidates—is the single most important factor in a long-term sponsor relationship. The second most important factor is to have an on-site mentor who is totally committed to the students and can speak from personal experience about the value to the sponsor and to the individual.

8.5 OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT As with any course of study, student project team members are often required to achieve specific learning outcomes. For example, for generic capstone project work, it is desirable that the mentor work with the students to determine if the project “shows acceptable evidence of” (ABET) economic considerations, safety considerations, reliability considerations, aesthetic aspects, analysis, synthesis, integration of previous course work, and experimental work. Different departments, majors, areas, and topics may have other evidence-based criteria to consider. Regardless, it is incumbent on the center advisor(s) to ensure that all team members are aware of the criteria and that the students are directed along a learning path that will address the criteria. Although WPI has been focused on projects-based education for well over 30 years it was only in 2009 that outcomes were approved for the MQP. Specifically, Students who complete a Major Qualifying Project will: 1. Apply fundamental and disciplinary concepts and methods in ways appropriate to their principle area of study. 2. Demonstrate skill and knowledge of current information and technology tools and techniques specific to the professional field of study. 3. Use effectively oral, written, and visual communications.

OUTCOMES AND ASSESSMENT

141

4. Identify, analyze, and solve problems creatively through sustained critical investigation. 5. Integrate information from multiple sources. 6. Demonstrate an awareness and application of appropriate personal, societal, and professional ethical standards. 7. Practice skills, diligence, and commitment to excellence needed to engage in lifelong learning. 8.5.1 Outcomes Assessment Each department addresses MQP outcomes assessment in a slightly different manner but an example will be drawn from the ECE department. In ECE, the approach is twofold. First, all faculty project advisors are asked to fill out an assessment form on which the advisor notes to what extent the completed project team, and individual team members, addressed the specific ABET capstone consideration areas (economics, safety, etc.). Second, every other year two ECE faculty members spend the summer reading and evaluating every single MQP completed since the previous review. Factors are ranked on a scale of 1–5 where 1 is not at all or poorly done/not appropriate to 5, which is to a great extent or well done/appropriate. The ranked factors include the following: . . . . . . . .

ABET factors (economics, safety, etc.) Appropriateness of the grade assigned Whether the documented work represented a full nine credits of project activity Level and extent of design and analysis Quality of the documentation Quality of the figures, tables, data, and so on Whether experimentation and laboratory work was involved Quality and extent of the references

The summer review faculty also collect and summarize the oral presentation evaluations generated during project presentation day to assess the quality of the presentations, areas in need of work, and long-term trends. Once the project reports have been read and analyzed, and the oral presentation reviews have been tabulated, a report is generated that summarizes the methods, data and observations, and makes recommendations for quality control and overall project program improvements. This review includes a comparison to previous reviews so that trends and problems can be identified, and the results of previously recommended improvements can be assessed. The data, summary report, and recommendations are presented and

142

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

reviewed early in the next academic year so that actions can be taken to continue to improve the overall MQP experience. Every department, not only the ABET accredited departments, has some type of formal project assessment process, many of which are similar to the ECE approach if only because the summer review of projects and presentations is supported and coordinated by the Provost office. The particulars of the implementation approach, however, are slightly different in each department.

8.6 FUTURE AND DEVELOPING CHALLENGES It is intriguing to note that a recent national study of capstone design courses and assessment [7] indicated that the vast majority of institutions recognize that a culminating design experience is critically important to the education of (engineering) students. Based on this recognition, one might ask the question “If projects based education and a capstone experience are so valued for engineering students, why are they not required of all students, regardless of the discipline?”. We believe that the answer is, of course, that such projects should be required of all students, regardless of the major. Our experience with a capstone requirement (i.e., MQP) for nonengineering/technology majors (e.g., management, mathematics, biology, biochemistry, humanities and art, and so forth) clearly shows that the capstone requirement is valued by those who hire our students, by graduate schools that accept WPI students and by the students themselves. Beneficial aspects of a capstone experience that were noted in the national study, such as teamwork, solving problems, the appropriate use of tools, opportunities for experimentation, and so forth have all been a traditional part of the MQP (and often the IQP) experience for all undergraduates, not just those in ABET accredited departments.

8.6.1 Going Global One of the many notable changes taking place at universities is an emphasis on providing a global experience or other form of cultural training and awareness for all college students. This concept is captured in the ABET requirement [4], Criterion 3, Program Outcomes, which states Engineering programs must demonstrate that their students attain the following outcomes: the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (italics added).

FUTURE AND DEVELOPING CHALLENGES

143

While other institutions are struggling to develop programs to address this requirement, a few facts are worth noting relative to the most recent WPI graduating class (May, 2009, commencement class). . .

69% of the graduates took part in an off-campus project experience 52% participated in an international project

The point is that a very large faction of graduating WPI students, across all disciplines, have engaged in one or more off-campus, sponsored, or other type of noncampus-based project experience, and in fact many have been in a global setting. There are several factors that we believe support our approach to the development of global programs. .

.

Developing a meaningful global capstone experience is difficult. The reason for this difficulty is that global capstone projects generally require significant technical support and mentoring, often only available in an educational or laboratory environment. Nonclassroom global projects are relatively easy to identify if they are not dependent on technology beyond the use of a personal computer. In contrast, the capstone with its requirement for an experience similar to that encountered in industry and based on all previous course work may not be the best vehicle for developing a global, noncourse-based project experience—particularly if it is desirable to develop a global program available to a large fraction of an institution’s students. Going global is not a trivial undertaking. A significant infrastructure is needed to support global programs. Factors such as risk management, program cost, medical and health issues (particularly in third-world nations), transportation, student behavior, student and advisor preparation, and a myriad of other issues need to be considered and managed.

The point here is that we believe a multifaceted approach to global education and cultural awareness, not necessarily focused exclusively on the capstone project, is best for providing global opportunities to a large fraction of an institution’s students. 8.6.2 Projects Across Time and Space It is now common for a design team in industry to work closely with counterparts in other countries. The reasons for this are many but a few obvious ones include the use of teams in different time zones to speed time to market, the use of teams where ever they are located to access the best available talent, and the use of teams across time and space to minimize development and production costs.

144

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

Exactly how should one incorporate this team design environment in a capstone project? We are not convinced that forming international capstone teams that are physically located across time and space are necessary to ensure the education of successful engineering students. Rather, in concert with others we believe that it is more important for students to have the following types of experiences and awareness. Teamwork: Students need multiple opportunities to work on teams. At WPI there is a breadth of opportunities, both elective and required, across all 4 years of the undergraduate program that taken together provide multiple opportunities for team-based project and laboratory experiences. Interdisciplinary: Projects that are interdisciplinary in nature are much more common now and reflect the type of work often encountered in an industrial setting where teams of engineers with diverse backgrounds work together to solve system design problems. Notable programs that are by their nature inherently interdisciplinary at WPI include the nation’s first Robotics Engineering degree program and an Interactive Media and Game Development degree program. Problem Solving: Real-world problems with realistic constraints are a foundation of capstone projects. Starting with our first-year Great Problems Seminar, WPI students have multiple opportunities to work on serious, real world, realistically constrained problems that can make a real and important difference in the quality of life. Global project center opportunities and industry-sponsored projects are additional examples of how to address problem solving in a real setting. Cultural Sensitivity: The IQP is unique among peer institutions. We primarily teach cultural sensitivity and awareness through immersion—by sending a majority of our students out to work on small team projects, often in third-world nations, rubbing shoulders with our sponsors who are passionate about addressing societal problems. 8.6.3 Innovation and Entrepreneurship Capstone projects that are based on open-ended problems with unknown solutions, uncertain technology, and multiple constraints are at the core of encouraging and teaching an entrepreneurship. To us, entrepreneurship is about taking risks—in particular, being able to judge what risks are worth taking, and to a great extent being able to quantify the risks so that one can make choices. Entrepreneurial engineers include . .

individuals who see opportunities, are willing to take calculated risks,

FUTURE AND DEVELOPING CHALLENGES

. . . .

145

by seeking improvements in a product or market, or creating an entirely new market or business based on a vision, are willing to set a new standard or break an assumed barrier, and have the tenacity to see a solution through to the end.

Entrepreneurship does not necessarily mean starting a company. According to Tryggvason and Apelian [8,also Chapter 1], the entrepreneurial engineer of the twenty-first century will . . .

.

Know Everything or be able to find, evaluate, and use needed information. Do Anything or be able to quickly access, learn, and use the tools needed to accomplish a goal. Work Anywhere with the appropriate communication and team skills, and understanding of global, local, and current issues needed to work effectively and efficiently. Make Imagination the Reality has the entrepreneurial spirit, imagination, and managerial skills needed to imaging and guide a solution through to completion.

Perhaps the most important question is “Does our MQP contribute to the development of the twenty-first century (entrepreneurial) engineer?” We believe that the answer is an unqualified “Yes!” Consider the following. Know Everything: The information age has magnified the problem of determining what information is useful, or even correct. As Tryggvason and Apelian noted, it is essential “for the professional engineer to be able to judge the quality of the information that he or she has.” At least one way to instill a sense of this judgment is through the implementation of an intense, hands-on project such as the MQP where a team of students is tasked with solving a real-world problem based on data and information they do not already have, and having to judge the quality of the data and information they do obtain as they attempt to apply it to the given problem. Do Anything: The heart of “doing anything” is the ability to independently learn whatever is needed to solve a problem. It is important to appreciate that the best MQPs are those that leave a team somewhat bewildered and then letting them figure it out (with proper advising). Along the way, the team will come to appreciate that they can learn new things on their own—and that goal-oriented learning can be enjoyable. Work Anywhere: The very nature of our nonclassroom-based qualifying projects program, often at a corporate site or global center, dictates that a large number of WPI student have an opportunity to work in unusual and challenging environments.

146

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

Make Imagination the Reality: A quick review of completed projects1 is all that is needed to fully appreciate the breadth and depth of a large fraction of completed MQPs, and the innovation and entrepreneurialism of the student teams. Indeed, it is a humbling experience to read the reports and to fully appreciate the extent and level of the work that went into the various department projects.

8.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Focusing only on the capstone experience one might be lulled into thinking that the MQP, albeit long predating the ABET requirement, is similar to those of other institutions. One must, however, view the requirement in terms of the WPI Plan which dictates both an IQP and MQP requirement and a philosophy of education based on teamwork, projects, opportunities for global experiences, and for which all faculty are involved—not just those who are assigned to teach the project(s) course that term. The advantages of this integrated approach to projects leading up to the MQP can be summarized as follows. .

.

.

1

Teamwork is integrated throughout the curriculum, from the first year of course-based laboratories to the required (IQP, MQP) projects. True project teamwork is, as a result, not delayed until the final undergraduate year, nor is it necessary to teach students how to be effective team members during their capstone project. Indeed, the majority of students at WPI have had several significant team-based experiences well before the start of their capstone project. Independent learning is ingrained in the WPI educational plan, particularly as part of the MQP and IQP. Together, these two project experiences force students to discover, qualify, and learn new material as needed for their project. From the ABET perspective, the need for lifelong learning is quantifiable by asking questions such as “What new topics, information, or skills were learned?,” “How were the new skills, topics, or information applied?,” and “What impact on the project outcomes did the newly learned skills, topics, or information have?” Support mechanisms are well developed. Institutions seeking to develop programs that offer cultural immersion, off-campus opportunities, or new formats for project experiences also need to consider the support

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Projects/projects.html.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

.

147

structures needed such as for risk management, program recruiting, advisor and student support for all forms of contingencies, budgeting, and of course student preparation. The development of integrated and comprehensive support structures is not trivial and, in fact, is vital to the success of any large scale and well managed off-campus projects program. The IQP provides a unique opportunity for WPI students to gain global project experience in a natural, nonclassroom setting. In turn, we have not experienced the urgency to develop global experiences as part of the capstone project and, instead, have been able to focus on developing global capstone projects, which are truly meaningful, nonclassroom based, and can capitalize on the support infrastructures already in place to support such projects. Indeed, ABET Criterion 3 (Program Outcomes) states the following:

the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context. .

.

2

which in our opinion is best met through a third-year interdisciplinary project that is specifically designed to relate science, engineering, and/or technology to the needs of society. This is unique among ABET-accredited institutions and has for more than 35 years proven to be an excellent approach to the development of students who exhibit the traits of this outcome. Learning how to do a project is an integral part of the capstone preparation course at many other institutions. By comparison, the WPI curriculum emphasize on projects and, in particular the third-year project (IQP), along with department-specific project preparation courses such as ECE 27992 usually taken in the second year of study negates the need to teach students in their final year of study how to do a project. If one counts this and similar project preparation courses together with the Going Global course taken prior to starting

ECE 2799. Electrical and Computer Engineering Design. The goal of this course is to provide experience with the design of a system, component, or process. Basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources to meet a stated objective. Fundamental steps of the design process are practiced, including the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, manufacturability, testing, and evaluation. Student work in small teams and are encouraged to use creativity to solve specific but open-ended problems, and then present their results. This course is strongly recommended for all students as a preparation for the design element of the MQP.

148

THE CAPSTONE PROJECT: AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE

the third-year project,3 WPI students have the equivalent of 15 course credits of project preparation and experience leading up to and including their capstone project. The highly integrated nature of the WPI curriculum, based on projects, teamwork, opportunities for global experiences, and a myriad of off-campus and corporate sponsored capstone project opportunities, together represent a unique environment that, to our knowledge, is not replicated elsewhere. In the words of Professors Richard Vaz and Peder Pedersen [9] Colleges and Universities looking for ways to integrate broad educational outcomes such as global awareness into engineering programs would be well advised to consider looking beyond the traditional course-driven curricular structure. When engineering students participate in real-world design experiences in international settings, they gain more than an understanding of the design process, they learn about the profession, the world and themselves.

REFERENCES 1. M. Dorsey, “A Miracle at Worcester: The Story of the WPI Plan, Part 1,” WPI Journal, Oct, 1996. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/News/Journal/Oct96/miracle. html. 2. Office of Projects Administration—Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “Projects Program: Welcome,” 2010. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Projects/. 3. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “The Major Qualifying Project (MQP),” 2010. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/catalogs/ugrad/mqp.html. 4. ABET Board of Directors, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Effective for Evaluations During the 2008-2009 Accreditation Cycle. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Nov, 2007. Available: http://www.abet.org/Linked%20DocumentsUPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2008-09%20EAC%20Criteria%201130-07.pdf. 5. J.P. Salmon, M. LaBossiere and M. Minotaur, “GPS Attitude Determination System.” Worcester Polytechnic Institute, MQP Project Report, 2005. Advisor: W.R. Michalson.

3

ID/SS 2050. Social Science Research for the IQP. This course is open to students accepted to off-campus IQP centers and programs. The course introduces students to research design, methods for social science research, and analysis. It also provides practice in specific research and field skills using the project topics students have selected in conjunction with sponsoring agencies. Students learn to develop social science hypotheses based upon literature reviews in their topic areas and apply concepts drawn from social psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, and other areas as appropriate. Students make presentations, write an organized project proposal, and develop a communication model for reporting their project findings.

REFERENCES

149

6. Office of Projects Administration—Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “Projects Program: Finishing a Project,” 2010. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/ Projects/finishing.html. 7. L.J. McKenzie, M.S. Trevisan, D.C. Davis and S.W. Beyerlein, “Capstone Design Courses and Assessment: A National Study”, proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Session 2225, Salt Lake City, UT, June 20-23, 2004. Available: http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paper-view.cfm?id¼20515. 8. G. Tryggvason and D. Apelian, “Re-Engineering Engineering Education for the Challenges of the 21st Century,” JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 14–17, Oct, 2006. 9. R.F. Vaz and P.C. Pedersen, “Experiential Learning with a Global Perspective: Overseas Senior Design Projects,” 32nd Annual, Frontiers in Education, Nov, 2002. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2002.1158685.

CHAPTER 9

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY CURTIS R. CARLSON and JEROME J. SCHAUFELD

9.1 OUR EXCITING, CHALLENGING WORLD The world’s opportunities and challenges are changing at rates that were inconceivable only a few years ago. Educators have the important responsibility of ensuring that science and engineering students are well prepared for this world. New curricula and other academic innovations are now required to provide this necessary education. As startling as it may seem, we have moved beyond both the industrial and knowledge economies. We are now in the innovation economy, where there are unlimited opportunities; where technology improves at rapid, exponential rates; and where global competition is fierce [1]. To thrive, we must have new innovation skills and perspectives. With them, the future can be seen correctly as a period of abundance; without them, the future may be seem incorrectly as a period of scarcity. Ideas are the currency of the innovation economy and they are an abundant, unlimited resource. Given these worldwide changes, are students fully prepared to compete by having the skills to rapidly innovate in global, multidisciplinary teams? Enterprises that do not strengthen and broaden their innovation processes will fail, and individuals who master these skills will be uniquely valuable. To gain a perspective on the innovation economy, we first look at previous economic periods and then describe the innovation economy in more detail.

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

151

152

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

9.1.1 Industrial Economy The industrial economy was dominated by a relatively small group of industrial nations, including England, the US, and Germany [2]. With apparently endless resources and an often cavalier attitude toward the environment, these industrial leaders supplied many of the world’s products and services. A signature innovation at the end of this period was Henry Ford’s mass production line [3], which revolutionized the transportation industry in 1913 by profoundly lowering manufacturing costs. This, and many other innovations that fostered the growth of mass production in airplanes, automobiles, and a host of other tangible goods, seemed unstoppable. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, America lost its lead in producing quality products to Japan. After World War II, a “Made in Japan” label implied cheaply made goods. Japanese companies were determined to eliminate that perception. They accomplished this by embracing the Total Quality Management (TQM) movement, as pioneered by W. Edwards Deming and Toyota’s Taiichi Ohno [4,5]. These innovators proved that by working in new, more productive ways, companies could dramatically increase quality and dramatically reduce costs. Using Ohno’s lean manufacturing innovations, Toyota became the world’s leader in automotive quality and eventually the world’s number one car company [6]. At first, the US and other developed countries mostly ignored Japan’s revolutionary new way of working. As a result, over the ensuing years many American companies and hundreds of thousands of jobs disappeared [7]. Many books and articles were written during this period about the decline of America [8]. After suffering substantial commercial and social pain, America eventually adopted these profoundly more productive ways of working, as did the rest of the world. Now, every significant manufacturing company uses some version of TQM’s continuous improvement principles. This approach has been so effective that low cost and high quality are the entrance requirements for most new products today.

9.1.2 Knowledge Economy In the late 1960s, America entered the knowledge economy. In 1969, Peter Drucker, the “father” of modern management theory, wrote perceptively in The Age of Discontinuity about the properties of this emerging era [9]. The signature event at the start of this period was when America landed a man on the moon in 1969, a technological tour de force that captured the world’s imagination. This period was exemplified by computer automation and the beginnings of new forms of ubiquitous communication, such as mobile

OUR EXCITING, CHALLENGING WORLD

153

communications. Another celebrated event of this period, which pointed to the future of communications, was the first transmission in 1969 over the Internet’s precursor, the ARPANET, or Advanced Research Projects Agency Network [10]. The strategy during this period was to augment the capabilities of knowledge workers using computing and communications technology, as a means to increase productivity. Nevertheless, during the 1970s and 1980s there was considerable debate about whether information systems were actually improving productivity. But by the 1990s the debate was essentially over [11]. America emerged as a leader in services, which added to core strengths in agriculture and manufacturing. Ultimately, modern information systems ushered in a sustained wave of increased productivity around the world. Today, it is hard to imagine running any business without advanced computing and communications systems. These systems will continue to rapidly improve and amplify the world’s productivity far into the future. During this period, India, China, and other developing countries became significant contributors to the world’s economy. These developing nations first focused on low-cost manufacturing by leveraging their vast supply of labor. They produced a wide array of products “faster and cheaper.” Product quality, however, was and often remains an issue [12,13]. In the developed world, Wal-Mart’s drive to provide products to consumers at profoundly lower prices and superior quality was symptomatic of the new global possibilities, leveraging modern information systems with worldwide, low-cost production [14]. Simultaneously, “outsourcing” became an ever-increasing strategy [15]. This trend resulted in major social and political concerns in developed countries, as millions of jobs moved to developing countries. This was also a period of increased focus on social responsibility and environmental concerns in the developed countries. The “green” environmental movement became worldwide. Overall, the success of the developing world is good for the US and other developed countries, as it creates new, lower-cost products for consumers and large, new markets for companies [16]. However, increased global competition and continuing job losses will undoubtedly aggravate the social and political issues surrounding free trade. The knowledge economy included many positive developments, but we are moving beyond it. Deriving competitive advantage from TQM management processes and standard knowledge management systems is no longer sufficient in many industries, because these capabilities are increasingly available to everyone around the globe. The “dot-com bubble” from 1997 to 2003 was in many ways a symbolic moment for the world’s economy [17]. Knowledge would no longer be enough, because everyone would have rapid access to it.

154

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

9.2 THE INNOVATION ECONOMY In the developed world, high-value innovation is now the primary path to growth, prosperity, environmental sustainability, and security [1, p. 22]. Developed countries can no longer compete on the basis of either low-cost labor or access to capital, which flows freely around the globe. They must provide an environment that promotes continuous and efficient innovation— the creation and delivery of new customer value in the marketplace. This is the only means for developed countries to remain productive and competitive, with increasing incomes and high levels of employment. In the innovation economy, we need to embrace a broader, more comprehensive understanding of our opportunities for creating new customer value. This broader understanding emphasizes the importance of continuous value creation throughout all parts of an enterprise, including academia, to remain competitive. Of course, innovation has always been the driving force for progress and improved productivity [16]. What is different today is how unrelenting our innovative processes must be to sustain either an enterprise or a nation. Specifically, the innovation economy is characterized by three main attributes [1, p. 26]: 9.2.1 Abundance of Opportunities This is a time of unprecedented opportunity. Almost every major field is undergoing increasingly rapid technological development. Progress is often at exponential rates, with improvements of 100% at the same cost every 12–48 months. Moore’s law for computers is the most famous example of this property. However, rapid, exponential improvement is now seen in many other fields too, as it becomes increasingly based on ideas and bits; not just atoms and muscle [18]. These continuous, rapid improvements open up one major opportunity after another. Whether in medicine, media, energy, consumer electronics, computing, or communications, there has never been a better time for creating major new innovations. It is potentially a time of great prosperity, if we seize and address the innovation challenge. Consequently this can also be the best time to obtain a science or engineering education. 9.2.2 Rapid Change While this rapid, exponential progress creates great opportunities, it also creates great challenges. For example, a company that does not innovate at the speed of the market will rapidly disappear. The decreasing life-span of S&P 500 companies indicates that fewer of them are keeping up with these changes [19]. “Lifetime employment” has become a distant, quaint idea.

THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

155

9.2.3 Intense Global Competition The world is now deeply integrated and competition is increasing at an unprecedented rate. The shift of traditional G8 economic leaders to the more inclusive G20 group is but one example of this change [20]. Almost every significant business must now think and act globally in our “flat world,” where ideas and money move at the speed of light [21]. Countries like India and China are moving past low-cost labor alone as a competitive advantage. This transition is happening rapidly because India and China can leverage the entire world’s knowledge. They can bring proven business ideas and technologies into India and China and adapt them for the Indian and Chinese markets. Consider also that just based on its population, China potentially has more “honor students” than America has students [22]. It is perhaps not surprising that China and India together annually produce more than 10 times as many science and engineering graduates as the US. Although the quality of America’s graduates still puts America far ahead, this advantage will not last long [23]. In India and China, the fervent desire for education along with a prodigious work ethic and a culture of entrepreneurism creates a strong basis for rapid progress. At the same time, we should be cautious about predicting China’s long-term prospects, since we have neither full access to information about their economy nor the ability to predict the future path of their political system. And India, with all its promise, must address daunting infrastructure, pollution, and governance issues [24]. China has similar issues [25,26]. But clearly, this increased level of global competition is just starting. Imagine what global competition may be like if the nearly three billion people now living in poverty across India, China, and the other developing countries fully join the world’s economy and add their ideas and innovative genius.

9.2.4 Other Challenges This period has other special challenges. As we emerge from a period of global financial chaos, it is still not clear whether the institutional changes made in response to the crisis will help or hurt future growth. The cost of fighting terrorism continues unabated, taking resources away from other activities. There are major demographic shifts occurring around the world whose consequences are still not well understood. For example, in Japan, Korea, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and many other developed countries, indigenous populations are declining by a quarter to a half in each successive generation [22]. In the future, without effective immigration policies, there may be many fewer workers in these countries to support the costly social services

156

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

required for an increasingly older population. In addition, it is likely that environmental costs will increase. Students have noticed that the world has changed and that new skills are needed. For example, at the most promising time in history for innovation, the number of US computer science graduates is down by half from the dot-com era [27]. Although the number of graduates has recently increased somewhat, it seems likely that some believe that computer science, by itself, can be off-shored to hundreds of thousands of lower-cost but still brilliant and well-educated programmers in India or China. In addition, American citizens are not as enthusiastic about science and engineering as many of us feel they should be, given the abundance of exciting opportunities. For example, foreign students now account for 33% of all students enrolled in American PhD programs in science and engineering [28]. Unfortunately, we let only a small percentage of these well-educated foreign students stay in the US. In addition, many of these bright and welleducated young people being educated in America are now returning to their home countries, where they can find exciting opportunities. Many from India and China feel that this is a “gold rush” period in their native countries, when they can make major contributions. America’s immigration policy is terribly shortsighted. Smart, motivated, and well-educated people are the only really scarce resource in the innovation economy. America should be actively recruiting the best students and professionals from around the world. 9.2.5 Poor Innovative Performance As previously mentioned, the lifetimes of the largest companies in America are decreasing rapidly. At the turn of the twentieth century, a company on the S&P 500 would remain there for more than 75 years before it was bought or dissolved. This was a time when many employees could expect “lifetime employment”; but no more. Today, the life-span of this elite group of companies is, on the average, down to under 20 years [19]. Consider also the success rate of new products in the retail grocery industry, which is only 20–30% [29]. Do they fail because of bad technology or from lack of clever, creative ideas? No. They fail because customers do not want them. Even in Silicon Valley, by far the world’s leading venture creation region, only 1 out of 5 or 10 new companies has real success. In what other activity would this be seen as good performance? The amount of waste these failures represent is enormous. Our dreadful innovative performance today is similar to the poor quality and high cost of products in the 1950s before TQM. For all the reasons mentioned, in order to thrive, we need to significantly improve our success rate at all forms of innovation. It is the only factor that significantly addresses many of the great challenges society faces. Imagine if

CHANGING FOCUS OF EDUCATION

157

we did just a few percent better every year in our innovative ability. Over time, the positive impact of these improvements on America’s and the world’s economies would be enormous.

9.3 CHANGING FOCUS OF EDUCATION As we moved from the agrarian, industrial, and knowledge economies to the innovation economy, the skills needed in the working population changed and educational institutions adapted. For example, in the agrarian economy, many high schools and universities taught animal husbandry; in the industrial economy it was drafting; and in the knowledge economy it was computer programming. None of these disciplines have disappeared, of course. They have just become embedded in more specialized educational programs as the needs of society have changed. In the innovation economy, we must now teach the fundamentals of innovation and value creation, in addition to traditional technical skills. This requires a more explicit inclusion of innovation as an educational discipline in the curriculum. Technical universities have always done this, at least to a limited degree. But today we need to be even more thoughtful and inclusive of all aspects of innovation. 9.3.1 Educational Convergence There are other reasons why this is an extremely exciting time for education. Five powerful factors are driving progress. First, there is an unprecedented need for improvements in learning outcomes, as indicated above. Second, there has been enormous progress in the science of education, with an increased understanding of how to improve educational outcomes, as described by Nobel prize-winning physicist Carl Wieman [30]. Third, rapid improvements occurring in technology for education, such as wireless tablet PCs, provide the low-cost, high-functionality systems needed to implement much of this new educational understanding. Fourth, new curricula, which exploit our educational understanding along with enabling technologies, have recently demonstrated dramatic improvements in learning [31,32]. And fifth, for the reasons mentioned, there is an ongoing movement to include innovation into education as a discipline. That is the focus of this chapter. As these five factors converge over the coming decades, numerous educational innovations will emerge. The potential of this convergence is now beginning to be appreciated, as indicated by programs in Singapore and across America and from the Gates, Kauffman, and Kern Family Foundations [33,34,35]. Additionally, the American government has taken note of this new potential. New programs being developed by the National Science

158

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

Foundation and the United States Department of Education will help drive this educational convergence [36,37]. For these reasons, educational institutions must adapt again to be responsive to their students’ needs in our global, innovation economy. During the knowledge economy, one broad change in this direction was to couple a technical education with an MBA to obtain core management skills to augment strong quantitative skills [38]. This was a productive step—and for several decades it seemed like a sure path to success. Indeed, if one’s goal is to be a manager in an established company or an entrepreneur, it is an excellent combination of skills. But more is required today. 9.3.2 Aalto University Universities have identified this new need for a deeper understanding of innovation and they are responding. Consider Finland, which is among the best in the world at educating students in K-12 math and science. They realized that their college graduates did not have the innovative and entrepreneurial skills required to thrive in the innovation economy. In response they have created Aalto University, which opened January 1, 2010 [39]. Aalto is a merger of three Finnish universities specializing in science and technology, business and economics, and art and design. Aalto’s goal is to create a new family of multidisciplinary educational and research activities “to educate the world’s best product designers”. The new curriculum will include project-based initiatives built initially around three interdisciplinary “factories”—the Design Factory, Media Factory, and Service Factory. Aalto will also include a number of innovation-based classes and student-run organizations, such as the Aalto Entrepreneurship Society. 9.3.3 American Innovation Initiatives In the US, a wide range of new educational initiatives are being developed to broadly treat innovation as a discipline to be studied, taught, and improved. Examples include the BIO-X and Innovation Journalism programs at Stanford University; the work-study program at Kettering University; the entrepreneurial master’s program at Case Western University; and many more [40–43]. In the US, the Kauffman and Kern Family Foundations have been at the forefront of sponsoring initiatives for teaching innovation at a wide array of universities. Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s (WPI’s) new course in Innovation and Entrepreneurship, which is offered to first-year engineering students, is an example of this trend. There are now dozens of different programs being developed around the world.

CHANGING FOCUS OF EDUCATION

159

9.3.4 Girls’ Middle School Initiatives have also been started to add more innovative skills to K-12 education. In Mountain View, California there is a small, private, all-girl school for grades 6, 7, and 8 called the Girls’ Middle School (GMS) [44]. It was started in 1998 by Kathleen Bennett, an entrepreneur, who realized that we were not educating young women properly for our rapidly evolving world [45]. The GMS has a project-based curriculum that includes serious math, science, computer science, humanities, and a language. The girls also take “shop” to learn how to make things. Why? In the seventh grade, GMS girls participate in the school’s Entrepreneurial Program, where they create and run their own businesses. The girls first go through a 2-day "boot camp" to learn how to form a company. Then, working in teams of 4 or 5, they write business plans describing the products or services they will market and sell. To a standing-room-only audience in a large auditorium, they present their business cases to Silicon Valley venture capitalists to raise the working capital they need to get started—several hundred dollars. Then they design and manufacture their products (one reason why they take shop class) and sell them to actual customers. Over the school year they can make several thousand dollars. One team even wrote a book called Middle School: How to Deal published by Chronicle Books in 2005. The girls learn teamwork, communication skills, consensus-building, personal responsibility, and the fundamentals of innovation, as they experience the ups and downs of running their own businesses. At the end of the year, the girls dissolve their companies, pay back their venture capitalists with interest, give a percentage to a charity of their choice to demonstrate social responsibility, and then share what is left. The girls who go through this terrific program view the world differently: they have a new vision of what is possible and what they can do. Talking to these young girls at the end of the year is inspiring. When asked what they had learned, one girl said, “This was really hard at first. But now that it is over, we are really proud about what we accomplished. And we had a lot of fun too. Have you ever experienced this?” We said, “Yes.” But we were thinking how valuable it would have been to experience this in the seventh grade rather than after graduate school [46]. The lucky young girls from the GMS have started to learn the skills needed to thrive in the innovation economy. Imagine how capable students would be if they all went through similar programs from K-16 and beyond. The country of Singapore, for example, is often ranked as number one in competitiveness [47,48]. But they know that what they are doing today will not be good enough in the future. To be even more successful, they are developing educational initiatives from K-16 to increase the creativity and innovative capacity of their workforce [49].

160

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

9.4 THE ORIGINAL WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE PLAN WPI has created a curriculum that addresses the educational needs of the innovation economy, which is the continuation of its original mission. In 1865, WPI was founded to serve the educational needs of the industrial economy. Then, in 1970, WPI pioneered a revolutionary new, campus-wide approach to technical education, called the WPI Plan, which addressed the needs of the knowledge economy [50]. The original WPI Plan replaced a rigid curriculum typical of traditional engineering schools with a project-based curriculum that combined classroom learning with real-world, team-based problem solving. These project-based programs taught fundamental elements of the innovative process and, in so doing, provided greater value to the students, WPI, and society. The WPI Plan was itself an important educational innovation. Teams are at the heart of the WPI Plan. This team focus represents a departure from the traditional academic expectation of individual work— work “without help from others.” In contrast, today’s business and technical organizations absolutely require that work be done in teams. Any other approach is dramatically too slow and ineffective. Most important problems in society today require multidisciplinary solutions. One individual cannot possibly provide all the knowledge needed. In addition to providing insights from their individual backgrounds, team members provide the impetuous and multiple perspectives required to dramatically accelerate progress. Everyone gets stuck in intellectual cul-de-sacs. Teams help us quickly find ways out. Teams also provide encouragement and sustenance through the inevitable difficult periods—and they allow us to have more fun. By having students always work alone, we fail to teach them the collaborative skills needed to succeed in the competitive marketplace, where most will spend their lives. Helping them realize the power and enjoyment that comes from working in teams provides one of the most important educational experiences anyone can have. The original WPI Plan required that all students complete three major projects, in addition to the demanding requirements of their fields. Sophomores complete a project in the humanities and arts on a theme that emerges from a series of self-selected courses. The projects can be centered on a specific topic or an artistic performance. Juniors complete an Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP), where teams address issues at the intersection of science, technology, and culture. This project emphasizes real-world problem solving while learning how that solution affects the different parts of society— an important lesson. They learn that all innovations have many “customers” that must be satisfied, including the purchaser of the product, the enterprise

NEW EDUCATIONAL IMPERATIVES

161

and employees producing it, and society. If, for example, a manufacturer violates an environmental law, its products are not viable solutions. A successful new innovation must satisfy all its customers, including society. Seniors complete a Major Qualifying Project (MQP), where teams solve real-world problems typical of those encountered in their professional disciplines. Taken together, these three projects emphasize that professionals must create practical technical solutions to real-world, unstructured problems. They must work productively in multidisciplinary teams, give compelling presentations, coherently document their work, and address the social and human consequences of their solutions. That is, WPI students are learning many of the fundamental ingredients required for creating successful innovations in today’s world.

9.5 NEW EDUCATIONAL IMPERATIVES 9.5.1 Purpose of an Education If you ask academics what the purpose of a scientific or engineering education is, you will get an array of answers. They generally include being able to find a good job, becoming a socially responsible citizen, creating new knowledge, and being able to continuously learn. These are certainly all true. And some graduates will become academics with the goal of sharing and creating new knowledge. Most science and engineering graduates, however, will work outside of academia as professionals in a wide array of occupations. Among their most important responsibilities will be to become proficient innovators— creating new value for their customers, colleagues, enterprises, and society. And, yes, they will be asked to continuously learn, create new knowledge, share that knowledge, and act in socially responsible ways. Once the definition of innovation is understood—the creation and delivery of new customer value in the marketplace—it is clear that it applies to academia too. Professors should be innovators, constantly striving to create new value for their stakeholders, such as students, parents, colleagues, institutions, and society. The WPI Plan, for example, is an example of an important educational innovation that provides additional value to all five stakeholders. It is not only scientific and technical graduates who must be proficient innovators. It is also the core purpose for most graduates who study economics, mathematics, business, architecture, media, art, creative writing, psychology, social sciences, and political science. During their professional careers, they too will be required to create new value for their customers, enterprises, and society.

162

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

9.5.2 Innovation in the Arts Consider the arts as one example. How many artists think of themselves as innovators? In our experience, not many. But Pablo Picasso created billions of dollars of new economic value in the art marketplace while also creating fundamental new knowledge about how to view the world. He was not a minor innovator; he was a major, disruptive innovator. This is true of all significant artists,whether Ludwigvan Beethoven, William Shakespeare, or more contemporarily, Leonard Bernstein. Innovation is inherently a part of most academic disciplines and a goal in almost every profession. Clearly, if professors are confused about one of the major purposes of education, they cannot create the best educational curriculum for their students in the innovation economy. At its inception, the WPI Plan was a revolutionary development that addressed fundamental aspects of innovative success. But the WPI faculty knew that it had to be enhanced as the world changed. A projects-based curriculum is now a vital part of a solid technical education, but it is no longer enough. The needs of society have become increasingly global, interrelated, and complex. Examples of this complexity are the recent worldwide debates on carbon credits, economic development, and sustainability. In addition, poverty, infectious diseases, and hunger still plague most of the world. Although there is broad acknowledgment that innovation is the pathway for confronting the world’s great challenges, there is still much confusion about what innovation is and how to teach it. 9.5.3 Increasing Attention on Innovation Considerable attention is being given to the topic of innovation. A Google query on “innovation” will produce more than 350 million hits. The concept has become a source of theory, research, scholarly writing, and endless grist for the press. There is a litany of consultants, publications, and public conversation about the virtues of innovation as a strategy going forward. There is also a new National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (NACIE) for the US. But something is still missing. Michael Mandel, Chief Economist at Bloomberg BusinessWeek, wonders why, with our impressive array of nanotech, biotech, robotics, artificial intelligence, and other technologies at hand, we are not seeing more marketplace impact [51]. He further asks, since we agree on the importance of innovation, why we don’t have better tools for quantifying progress. We have output measures, such as the number of IPOs, stock price, corporate growth, and market share. But he argues that these measures still fall short because they do not measure either innovative capacity or efficiency. Intellectual property and publications are poor measures of future innovative success. We agree. In addition to the marketplace outputs

NEW EDUCATIONAL IMPERATIVES

163

listed above, the only way to measure progress, capacity, and efficiency is through the “artifacts” of innovation, such as the core concepts and processes to be described shortly. We believe that our innovative progresses will be faster and more successful once these core concepts are widely known. 9.5.4 Defining Innovation Although interest in the topic of innovation is great, the field is still in its infancy. It is like the discipline of TQM before Deming and Ohno [52]. For example, if you ask seasoned executives for the definition of innovation, you will usually be told that it is about some version of creativity, teamwork, intellectual property, novel ideas, or entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, these definitions are incomplete. And not surprisingly, this misunderstanding leads to a great deal of confusion. A more complete definition than we gave earlier is: “Innovation is the creation and delivery of new customer value in the marketplace. Innovations are sustainable only if they have a business model that allows for their continued production” [1, p. 6]. Until customers in the marketplace obtain a new product or service—whether in the commercial, governmental, or educational sectors— it is not an innovation. And unless an enterprise, group, or person obtains sufficient value for producing the product or service, it rapidly disappears and ceases to be an innovation. “Sufficient value” means that the producer can either recoup their investments or find a way to have the endeavor subsidized either directly or through volunteer efforts, such as exemplified by Wikipedia. Innovations can be small and transitory, like Motorola’s flat RAZR phone, or large and long lasting, like the computer mouse and the modern PC interface first developed by Douglas Engelbart [53]. The world rightly celebrates large, disruptive innovations, like Edison’s light bulb and the Internet. But most innovations are small. Nevertheless, cumulatively they can add up and create enormous customer value. Compare Ford’s Model-T to today’s automobiles. They are both still “transportation,” but today automobiles include a tremendous number ofinnovations both small and large. It took many tens of thousands of small innovations to achieve the remarkable quality, durability, and reliability of today’s automobiles. Today’s automobiles can also include many major innovations, such as air conditioning, AM–FM–satellite radio, airbags, seatbelts, GPS-guided navigation systems, and pollution controls. And unlike the Model-T that only came in black, we are now offered a rainbow of colors. 9.5.5 Outputs: Not Just Inputs It is important to focus efforts on output—innovation—and not confuse it with inputs. Concepts like entrepreneurship, creativity, collaboration, and

164

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

business skills are all inputs that can help create new innovations. That is, the goal is not entrepreneurship; it is innovation. Entrepreneurship is a set of skills, attitudes, and behaviors that can help a person be more successful at developing innovations. Using the wrong words to describe innovation can cause confusion and limit innovative success. It can even discourage people from participating fully. For example, after a talk on innovation to a large group of academics, including many deans and department heads, a department head of mechanical engineering said, “That talk changed my life.” When asked why, he said, “Because I have been asked to teach entrepreneurship and I just don’t feel like an entrepreneur—that is not who I am; it is not my identity. Teaching entrepreneurship has always made me feel uncomfortable. But I am passionate about innovation. That is why I obtained my Ph.D., became a professor, and agreed to be a department head. It is also why I love teaching students, so that they can become innovators and make positive contributions too. From the new perspectives you gave us today, I now realize that I can teach these courses with enthusiasm” [54]. 9.5.6 Poor Understanding Today At SRI International’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California, several thousand academics, government officials, technical managers, and senior executives have come to participate in a program called the SRI Five Disciplines of Innovation. The program starts by asking participants to write on sticky notes answers to a series of questions, including the definitions for innovation, customer value, and value propositions. These are among the most basic concepts in any business, including education. The participants then anonymously place their answers on a wall, so that no one will be embarrassed by their answers. Remarkably, only about 10–20% of the participants can reasonably answer these basic questions. Of course, since these are serious professionals, they can eventually figure out appropriate answers with some coaching. But by not having a common, accurate language for the most basic concepts of innovation, their day-to-day interactions are often confused and inefficient. Clearly, these basic ideas are not widely taught. Unfortunately, if you ask academics these same questions, even fewer can give correct responses. The language of innovation is clearly not part of today’s academic lexicon. This misunderstanding leads many academics to feel that these ideas do not apply to them—but they do. One barrier is the word “customer,” because professors have a unique role and relationship with their students. Clearly, however, great teachers constantly strive to create more value for their students through new curricula and better teaching methods.

THE WPI PLAN TODAY

165

Nevertheless, in academia the word “stakeholder” is generally more resonant and can be used instead of “customer.” 9.5.7 Education’s Important Need In science and engineering universities, the foundation is provided by a superb technical education. This education should include an appreciation of systems design and the pace of technology and what it will make possible over the next decades. But the innovation economy requires other changes in the technical curricula, such as a more comprehensive understanding of innovation and the processes that lead to efficient value creation. This new understanding includes fundamental business concepts with a global perspective. Graduates must be able to write clearly and give crisp, compelling presentations, which have become even more important in a world driven by change and full of distractions. Finally, they must have the human skills and values needed for productive, multidisciplinary collaboration. In summary, innovation must become a broad-based academic “discipline” that is integrated into the curriculum. A challenge is to find ways to build these changes into an already crowded curriculum.

9.6 THE WPI PLAN TODAY Since the original WPI Plan was introduced in 1970, the WPI curriculum has changed greatly in response to global dynamics [55]. It still includes the three team-based projects in the sophomore, junior, and senior years, but the WPI Plan is now global; it includes a freshman Great Problems Seminar; and courses are given on innovation and why it is important in our complex world. A multidisciplinary team of WPI professors also meets regularly throughout the school year to make improvements, develop new programs, and help other faculty embed the concepts of innovation more broadly throughout the WPI curriculum [56]. 9.6.1 Global Perspectives Program Recognizing that we live in a global world, WPI has created the Global Perspectives Program, where student teams go abroad to solve real-world problems [57]. Through this program, since 1970 WPI has sent more engineering and science students abroad than any other American university [58]. WPI students can go abroad as teams in either their junior or senior years as part of their MQP or IQP projects. At project centers around the globe, WPI students address local issues, solve real-world problems, develop an

166

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

understanding of other cultures, and see firsthand how their lives and work will play out on the global stage. Unlike many schools that send their students abroad to places like Paris, where students spend much of their time in bistros sipping espresso, WPI students often go to remote locations where they solve real problems, frequently in challenging environments. WPI has more than 26 worldwide project centers [59]. This include sites in Bangkok, Thailand; London, England; Windhoek, Namibia; Cape Town, South Africa; Melbourne, Australia; Nancy, France; Kansai, Japan; Wuhan and Hong Kong, China; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Copenhagen, Denmark. And, closer to home, there are centers in Wall Street and Silicon Valley. 9.6.2 Cape Town Laundry System One WPI team went to Khayelitsha, an extremely poor community outside of Cape Town, South Africa. The community lacked readily available water for washing clothes and they had sanitation issues because used wash water was discarded outside of homes. The students’ project was to build a communal laundry station that addressed these and other needs of the community. The students started by building strong relationships within the community, gathering information about laundry practices, and exploring options for water collection, laundry, and irrigation. With this information, they designed a laundry station and evaluated and revised it until the community’s needs were met. Then, with the community, they built the new laundry facility. The final laundry system, which includes a new small building, was built around a rainwater collection and irrigation disposal system. Scarce and remote municipal water is no longer used and there is no emitted waste. Because of its success, this system has been replicated at other sites across Cape Town. These four students created an innovation that delivered sustainable value to the community. A video of the students after their experience showed how proud they were at overcoming all the obstacles they had encountered. It is valuable and fun for students from other schools to travel around Europe in their junior year. However, the experience of these students in Cape Town will be a source of knowledge and pride, as well as inspiration and resolve, for the rest of their professional careers. 9.6.3 Great Problems Seminars WPI President Dennis Berkey and members of the faculty realized that, as freshmen, WPI students also needed to have a team-based project experience with a global focus. In 2007, the Great Problems Seminar was launched. This program begins the WPI experience of working in teams, learning how to solve unstructured problems, and thinking globally. The semester-long

THE WPI PLAN TODAY

167

program introduces freshmen to some of the world’s grand challenges: Feed the World, Power the World, Heal the World, and Make the World. By working collaboratively during these projects, the students are much better prepared for their other WPI Plan projects. Students enrolled in the Great Problems Seminar have become so involved that they continued their projects after the course was over. For example, two Make the World teams continued their projects in Kenya [60,61]. They began their project after hearing a talk from a person working with Industry’s Humanitarian Support Alliance NGO (IHSAN), whose mission is to “empower humanity with the means for survival through water, sanitation, hygiene, and education” [62]. Learning about some of the massive problems in Kenya, the WPI teams decided to study the diseases in the region and how they are spread. Tragically, Kenya has one of the highest and most fatal infectious disease rates in the world. It is dreadfully poor. More than 20% of the population lives on less than $1 a day and it has an estimated unemployment rate of 40% [22]. During their projects, the WPI teams identified several related problems in the town of Malewa. The first problem was the water supply, which is a river over a mile from the village. The water had to be carried back to the town by the local women every day. It was unsanitary. The WPI team developed a plan to use a low-cost water purifier, the Better Water Maker, using local students to run the purifiers. They also developed a communication plan with brochures for the proper use of the purifier, which were distributed in the community. An additional problem was the widespread lack of personal hygiene. Few people washed their hands because most did not have enough water, soap, or knowledge about how diseases are transmitted. The WPI team identified a local woman, Mama Jane, who was making excellent quality aloe soap using indigenous organic materials. Interestingly, it is the kind of soap you would pay a premium for at your local specialty store in America. To be used widely she needed to reduce the soap’s cost by improving her production methods. By corresponding with an IHSAN member in Malewa, the WPI team developed a plan for a sustainable small business to address the hygiene and sanitation issues. The project involved a $750 microloan to Mama Jane, so she could expand her business beyond her immediate community. The plan helped her create a business model with a 5-year growth plan. In just 6 months, Mama Jane purchased more equipment, hired local staff to increase production, and expanded sales to communities more than 20 miles away. She also managed to save a percentage of her profits to pay back her microloan. The following summer, on their own time, several of the students raised more than $4000, which was matched by IHSAN, so that they could go to Kenya and assist Mama Jane in further developing her soap distribution and sales plans. The WPI team also began hygiene awareness programs for the

168

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

schools in the region. Finally, the students installed three IHSAN water-pump distribution systems, which will help reduce the hard labor of carrying water each day. The students’ professor has been amazed by the response of his students to the Great Problems Seminar. He said that he typically gets a few thank-you e-mails after a traditional course. But in this case he is getting more than 20 thank-you e-mails each time he teaches the course. The students are passionate about the program because of the positive relationships it builds and the terrific feeling of accomplishment they get from successfully completing their projects. They are experiencing some of the challenges and joys of innovation in their freshman year. The students have also gained a global perspective and the realization that they can literally “make the world” a better place. The freshman Great Problems Seminar has become an integral part of the WPI Plan. Interestingly, when the course was first introduced it was offered to a limited number of students. As a perfect example of “market pull,” several parents of students who were not enrolled called WPI to complain that their children were not included. The course has since been greatly expanded [56]. The faculty has found that upper-class students, having been prepared by this freshmen experience, are better able to approach their more complex projects. They have learned some of the fundamentals of innovation. In addition, the students become more realistic and mature [63]. 9.6.4 Innovation and Entrepreneurship Curricula In 2007, several WPI professors felt that a new course was needed to provide a broader understanding of innovation within WPI’s technical education. With the assistance of a grant from the Kern Family Foundation, the new course, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, was developed and is given to freshmen and sophomores. This allows the lessons learned to be used in their junior and senior projects. The course’s goal is to provide students with knowledge about the fundamentals of innovation—those concepts and practices that can impact students over their entire careers. The course includes a “toolbox” of business and innovation fundamentals that are presented at the beginning of the course. Cases from the Harvard Business School are used as supplementary material. 9.6.5 Proven Practitioners A feature of the program is the inclusion of results from proven innovation practitioners; that is, material from people who have proven to be successful, global, high-value innovators and thought leaders. Thus, the work of Christiansen, Moore, Porter, and others is included [1,64,65,66]. The course also has teams completing a common design challenge, such as a new robotic

THE WPI PLAN TODAY

169

solution. The project requires a design that is innovative, not just clever. It is relatively easy for students to embrace the design issues, but developing an innovation is more difficult. The innovative process requires the additional skills and perspectives taught in the course. Written assessments and quizzes record both the comprehension and response of the students to the course. This material is used by WPI faculty to further improve the course. Continuous improvement is a feature of the program.

9.6.6 Comprehensive Approach The WPI Innovation and Entrepreneurship course broadly covers the value creation and commercialization processes. For example, it is well known that a region’s ecosystem plays a critical role in achieving sustained innovative success [67]. Regions like Route 128 around Boston, Massachusetts, and Silicon Valley in California are examples of comprehensive innovative ecosystems. They actively encourage and support innovation and entrepreneurship. They provide the culture, venture capital, experienced entrepreneurs, services, and other ingredients that greatly improve the likelihood of innovative success. Understanding and being able to evaluate a region’s innovative potential and how to leverage it is a core entrepreneurial skill.

9.6.7 Proven Best Practices Another example comes from practitioners, such as SRI International. With its industry and government partners, SRI has been responsible for many worldchanging innovations, such as the computer mouse and HDTV, which have created many tens of billions of dollars of new economic value. In the book Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want, the authors describe a family of “disciplines” used at SRI that, once mastered, greatly facilitate innovative success [1]. SRI’s five disciplines are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Important customer and market needs Value creation Innovation champions Innovation teams Organizational alignment

They emphasize the importance of focusing first on the most fundamental concepts necessary for systematic, innovative success. SRI calls these “disciplines” because they can be studied, learned, and improved.

170

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

9.6.8 Value Creation Included in the WPI Innovation and Entrepreneurship course are many examples of innovation best practices, such as those assembled in SRI’s five disciplines. We will outline one example, value creation. Developing a new innovation is not an event; it is a process. It requires the discovery and creation of new knowledge that addresses customer needs— value creation. It is a process, as illustrated in Figure 9.1, where customer needs at B are connected with new knowledge at A to create a new product or service, such as a new curriculum. From B to C the enterprise generates profit, but eventually the product or service becomes obsolete and the value-creation process must be repeated. For example, technical education in America has made major changes during each economic period and continuously modified as technology has evolved. All innovations require connecting A to B. This process is very hard and it takes great effort and considerable time to develop compelling, high-value solutions. Often this process is called the “Valley of Death” because it is so difficult to understand and navigate [68]. At every step, the most efficient and effective practices should be used. Because connecting A to B is common to all innovations, any advance that makes the process faster and more successful is itself a major innovation—a meta-innovation. It is for this reason that author C.R. Carlson says about SRI, “The way we work is our most important C Obsolescence

Value

Profit

B

NABC Value Propositions Value-Creation Forums

New knowledge R&D

Important customer and market needs

A Time

FIGURE 9.1 Value creation is a process where important customer and market needs at B and new knowledge at A converge to create innovations that generate enterprise profit (or other means to sustain the innovation) from B to C. At some point the product life cycle is complete, the product becomes obsolete, and it is necessary to create a new, higher-value product or service. The role of R&D is to provide new knowledge to address important customer and market needs. Innovation tools and processes help facilitate value creation, such as NABC Value Propositions and Value-Creation Forums.

THE WPI PLAN TODAY

171

innovation.” Below are several examples of concepts, tools, and practices that greatly increase innovative efficiency and the likelihood of success. 9.6.9 Value Propositions Developing a new innovation requires answering four fundamental questions, which define the proposed innovation’s value proposition: (a) What is the important customer and market need, not one that is just interesting to you? (b) What is the unique, compelling new approach to address this need? (c) What are the specific, quantitative benefits per costs (i.e., customer value) of that approach? (d) Why are those benefits per costs superior to the competition and alternatives? These four questions define an “NABC Value Proposition” (i.e., Need, Approach, Benefits per costs, and Competition) [1, p. 85]. Every new innovation must answer at least these four questions: they are the absolute minimum. Focusing on these four questions, rather than starting by trying to write a 200-page report, saves time because in the beginning you know very little about your customers and the market; you seldom have the best ideas and partners for your approach; and you typically know little about the competition and alternatives to your idea. Thus, you have little to no understanding of your benefits per costs. The NABC method focuses would-be innovators on the most basic four starting questions, which are very hard to answer. It saves enormous time and effort that, unfortunately, is often spent by untrained, would-be innovators on useless activities. Once the NABC Value Proposition is developed, one can move forward and efficiently create a more detailed innovation plan. The NABC approach applies to all functions in an enterprise, including teaching and research in academia. As we noted, the focus of the WPI Innovation and Entrepreneurship course is on fundamentals that will stay with students throughout their careers. This course is being integrated into the WPI curriculum as part of the WPI Plan. Over time, it can become a building block for obtaining a complete engineering education at WPI. 9.6.10 Continuous Improvement In order to adapt to the changing external environment, a best practice is to use continuous improvement processes. WPI has formed such an initiative, called

172

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

the “WPI Innovation Team,” which includes a core group of professors committed to innovation and entrepreneurship. The team meets regularly to share and develop new educational ideas of value for students, WPI, and society. They use feedback from students, faculty, and others outside the WPI community. For example, they are studying innovation incubators, such as MIT’s Hobby Shop, the Gateway Center at WPI, and the Slater Fund in Rhode Island, that have promising ideas potentially useful to WPI. Input is included from groups such as the National Business Incubators Association (NBIA), which benchmarks incubators and compares their performance against the best practices from their 1600 member organizations [69]. 9.6.11 Innovation Across the Curriculum The WPI Innovation Team is focused on ways to encourage the incorporation of innovative concepts and practices into other groups and educational disciplines across the campus [56]. A common concern with project-based programs, like the WPI Plan, is the time they take in an already crowded curriculum. WPI is exploring two ways to address this issue: build core lessons about innovation 1) into the team-based projects and 2) into classroom curricula. 9.6.12 Value-Creation Forums WPI’s IQP and MGP team projects represent excellent opportunities for teaching additional innovation concepts, since the students are already engaged in activities where the new concepts can be used immediately. For example, when teams are working on their projects they meet regularly to report on their status. These meetings represent an opportunity to enrich the experience by holding regular Value-Creation Forums, where teams give short presentations on their projects, receive feedback, and learn and share new ideas [1, p.101]. The objective of Value-Creation Forums is to rapidly improve innovative ideas by tapping into the “genius of the team.” Two guiding principles make the meetings most productive. First, everyone stands up and presents; no bench-sitters allowed. Each person gives an NABC Value Proposition about their project [1, p. 128]. They present for 5 or 10 min and, when time is up, they must stop. The presentations are short so the presenters can focus on the fundamentals, which are very hard to answer. Second, the presenter’s teammates then critique the presentation to reinforce what worked and to suggest ways it could be improved. The presenter listens carefully without responding to the input; corrections should be made later to save the group’s time. This approach has proven to be very effective in corporate, academic, and governmental settings [1, p. 101].

CONCLUSIONS

173

Experience shows that after three or four Value-Creation Forums, with work with a teammate in between, the improvements realized are impressive. Value-Creation Forums allow the rapid sharing of ideas and allows each participant to be a role model for their teammates. These meetings tap into participants’ natural competitiveness, which incentivizes them to improve each presentation. Another concept for efficiently teaching innovation is to embed core innovation concepts into the classroom curriculum. Engineering, economics, finance, and business courses are the most natural starting places [1, p. 293]. A more comprehensive approach includes adding a concept or two in other courses, such as art, media, psychology, sociology, political science, architecture, literature, writing, and history. A “toolbox” of roughly 20 concepts, as WPI has identified, can provide a solid innovation education when distributed throughout the curriculum over 4 years. Through core lessons about innovation built into both the team-based projects and into the classroom curriculum, students can enter the workforce or graduate school with a sound understanding of the basics of innovation. This knowledge can distinguish them professionally over their careers. 9.6.13 Benefits for Faculty The benefits from these innovation programs are not just for the students. Experience shows that when senior technical professionals gain these innovative skills, they become more successful too. The quality of research improves, productive collaboration with colleagues increases, and a framework for continuous improvement across the academic enterprise is created.

9.7 CONCLUSIONS We are in the innovation economy. There has never been a better time for creating major new innovations: it is potentially a time of abundance and unprecedented prosperity. But it is also the most challenging time in the history of innovation, with technological improvements in most fields occurring at rapid, exponential rates and with global competition increasing equally dramatically. This dynamism will not stop. These driving forces will actually accelerate as billions of people in the developing world move from poverty and low-cost manufacturing to prosperity and the creation of new, high-value innovations. To thrive in this world, technical professionals need new skills based on an excellent technical education along with a comprehensive understanding of the concepts and processes that lead to innovative success.

174

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

WPI has a long and proven legacy of addressing the human capital needs of society. This began with the formation of WPI in 1865 in response to the needs of the industrial economy. Then, in response to the knowledge economy, WPI pioneered the world’s first comprehensive, campus-wide, project- and teambased technical curriculum in 1970, called the WPI Plan. WPI has again extended the WPI Plan and developed what may be the best technical education for the innovation economy. It is a comprehensive, campus-wide program that integrates a superb technical education with a family of team-based, multidisciplinary projects in all 4 years, where students solve real-world problems and learn collaboration, communication, and other core skills. It has a global outreach program, with more than 26 project centers around the world; courses that teach the fundamentals of innovation; studentlead extracurricular entrepreneurial activities; and a process to continuously improve the curriculum while including core concepts of innovation throughout the broader WPI community. The WPI Plan is an example of a comprehensive technical curriculum for the innovation economy. With this education, WPI graduates are extremely well prepared for the exciting world they are entering. For them, there can be a career of continuous opportunities, important accomplishments, and great professional satisfaction.

REFERENCES 1. C.R. Carlson and W.W. Wilmot, Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want. New York, NY: Crown-Random House, 2006. 2. C. Gregory, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2007. 3. R. Batchelor, Henry Ford: Mass Production, Modernism and Design. New York, NY: Manchester University, 1994. 4. W.E. Deming, Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986. 5. T. Ohno, Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press, 1988. 6. “Toyota Motor Corporation.” New York Times, sec. Business Day, Aug 11, 2010. Available: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/toyota_ motor_corporation/index.html. 7. G. Friedman, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. New York: Doubleday, 2009. 8. A. Dowd, “Three Centuries of American Declinism.” Real Clear Politics, Aug 27, 2007. Available: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/declinism.html.

REFERENCES

175

9. P.F. Drucker, The Age of Discontinuity Guidelines to Our Changing Society, 3rd edn. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction, 1992. 10. P.S. Salus, Casting the Net: From ARPANET to Internet and Beyond. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995. 11. E. Brynjolfsson and L.M. Hitt, Computing Productivity: Firm Level Evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management. Working Paper No. 4210-01. June 2003. Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract%5Fid ¼290325. 12. D. Barboza.“China Reveals Deep Consumer Product Quality Problems.” New York Times, sec. Business, July 4, 2007. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/07/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-food.5.6497264.html. 13. P. Midler, “Dealing With China’s ‘Quality Fade.’” Forbes.com, July 26, 2007. Available: http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/26/china-manufacturing-quality-entmanage-cx_kw_0726whartonchina.html. 14. N. Lichtenstein, The Retail Revolution: How WAL-MART Created a Brave New World of Business. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books, 2009. 15. M.J. Power, K.C. Desouza and C. Bonifazi, The Outsourcing Handbook: How to Implement a Successful Outsourcing Process. Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 2006. 16. M. Ridley, The Rational Optimist. New York, NY: Harper, 2010. 17. R. Lowenstein, Origins of the Crash: The Great Bubble and its Undoing. New York: Penguin, 2004. 18. R. Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York, NY: Viking Press, 2005. 19. R. Foster and S. Kaplan, Creative Destruction: Why Companies that Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them. New York, NY: Doubleday-Currency, 2001. 20. E.L. Andrews, “Leaders of G-20 Vow to Reshape Global Economy.” New York Times, sec. A, p. 1, Sept 25, 2009. 21. T. Friedman, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005. 22. The CIA World Fact Book. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009. Available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. 23. V. Wadhwa, “About that Engineering Gap, Is the US Really Falling Behind China and India in Education.” Business Week, Issue 3936, Dec 13, 2005. Available: http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2005/sb20051212_ 623922.htm. 24. A. Kapor, “Urban Greatness Awaits Good Governance,” New York Times, sec. World, Asia Pacific, May 20, 2010. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/ 21/world/asia/21iht-letter.html. 25. E. Rosenthal, “Iceland Leads Environmental Index as United States Falls,” New York Times, sec. Science, Earth, Jan 27, 2010.

176

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

26. J. Yardley, “A Troubled River Mirrors China’s Path to Modernity,” New York Times, sec. World, Asia Pacific, Nov 19, 2006. Available: http://www.nytimes. com/2006/11/19/world/asia/19yellowriver.html. 27. J. Timmer, “Computer Science Degrees Rebound from Dotcom Bust,” ARS Technica, sec. Science, News, Mar 17, 2009. Available: http://arstechnica.com/ science/news/2009/03/computer-science-degrees-rebound-from-dotcom-bust.ars. 28. National Science Board, National Science Foundation, “U.S. R&D: Funding and Performance” Key Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010 Digest, 2010. 29. D. Stone, “Winning the New Product Innovation Game,” Corp!, Dec 4, 2008. Available: http://www.corpmagazine.com/DesktopModules/EngagePublish/ printerfriendly.aspx?itemId¼274&PortalId¼0&TabId¼74. 30. C. Wieman, “Why Not Try A Scientific Approach to Science Education.” Science 2.0, Mar 10, 2009. Available: http://www.science20.com/carl_wieman/why_ not_try_scientific_approach_science_education. 31. J. Roschelle, N. Shechtman, D. Tatar, S. Hegedus, B. Hopkins, S. Empson, J. Knudsen and L. Gallagher, “Integration of Technology, Curriculum, and Professional Development for Advancing Middle School Mathematics: Three Large-Scale Studies,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 833–878, June 2010. 32. J. Roschelle, D. Tatar, N. Shechtman, S. Hegedus, B. Hopkins, J. Knudsen and M. Dunn, “Scaling Up SimCalc Project Extending the SimCalc Approach to Grade 8 Mathematics.” SRI International, Technical Report 02. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, Dec 2007. Available: http://ctl.sri.com/publications/downloads/ SimCalc_TechReport02.pdf. 33. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, PO Box 23350 Seattle, WA 98102. Available: http://www.gatesfoundation.org. 34. Kauffman Foundation, 4801 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, MO 64110. Available: http://www.kauffman.org. 35. Kern Family Foundation, W305S4239 Brookhill Road, Waukesha, WI 53189. Available: http://www.kffdn.org. 36. For example, SRI International’s Barbara Means is leading a team to develop the national education technology plan for the Department of Education. See http:// www.ed.gov/. 37. National Educational Technology Plan, Technical Working Group, “Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology,” Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Mar 5, 2010. 38. “Entrepreneurship: The Path to Economic Stability,” Judith Cone Interview. The Businessmakers. Jan 24, 2009. 39. M. Green, “A Merger with Innovation at Its Heart.” Financial Times, Business Education, p. 14, Mar 30, 2009. 40. “BIO-X,” Stanford University, 2010. Available: http://biox.stanford.edu.

REFERENCES

177

41. “Center for Innovation and Communication,” Stanford University, 2010. Available: http://injo.stanford.edu. 42. Kettering University, 2010. Available: http://www.kettering.edu. 43. Case Western Reserve University, 2010. Available: http://www.case.edu. 44. T.G. Ranzetta, “Rx for Silicon Valley Success: VC Advice,” CNN MoneyFortune Blog, Mar 30, 2010. Available: http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/ 2010/03/30/rx-for-silicon-valley-success-vc-advice. 45. The Girls’ Middle School, “History of the Girls’ Middle School.” Available: http://www.girlsms.org/about/our-history. 46. Girls’ Middle School Students, Private correspondence, 2008. 47. B. Einhorn, “Innovation: Singapore is No. 1, Well Ahead of the United States.” Bloomberg Business Week, p. 1, Mar 16, 2009. Available: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2009/gb20090316_004837.htm?campaign_id¼ rss_daily. 48. “Economy Rankings,” Doing Business. Available: http://www.doingbusiness. org/economyrankings/. 49. Ministry of Education Singapore, “Science Programmes: Innovation Programme (IvP).” Available: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/programmes/gifted-educationprogramme/special-programmes/science-programmes/innovation-programme. 50. “The WPI Plan.” Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2010. Available: http://www. wpi.edu/academics/catalogs/ugrad/wpiplan.html. 51. M. Mandel, “America’s Innovation Shortfall.” Bloomberg Business Week, June 3, 2009. Available: http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/podcasts/mandel_on_economics/mandel_on_economics_06_03_09.htm. 52. W.A. Shewhart, Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. New York: Van Nostrand Company, 1931. 53. D. Nielson, A Heritage of Innovation: SRI’s First Half Century. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2006. 54. C.R. Carlson, “The Imperative for Including Innovation into a Technical Education,” Keynote at the Kern Family Foundation Annual Meeting at Thunderbird University in Arizona, Jan 7, 2008. 55. D.D. Berkey, “International Education and Holistic Thinking for Engineers” in D. Grasso and M. B. Burkins (eds.), Holistic Engineering Education: Beyond Technology. New York: Springer, 2010. 56. R.D. Sisson, Private correspondence, May 19, 2010. 57. “America’s Best Colleges,” U.S. News and World Report, 2010. 58. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “U.S. News & World Report’ Lauds WPI’s Study Abroad and Senior Project Programs.” 2010. Available: http://www.wpi. edu/news/20090/usn.html. 59. Global Perspective Program, “Project Centers in the World.” Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2010. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/GPP/Centers/ intheworld.html.

178

TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE INNOVATION ECONOMY

60. J. Bowers, F. Buckley, A. Chase and P. Kinsky, “Malewa Clean Water Project.” Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Make the World unpublished first-year student report, 2009. 61. E. Muniz, A. Gottshall, M. Connolly, N. VerLee, M. O’Brian, and V. Nguyen, “Sustainable Soap and Hygiene for Malewa, Kenya.” Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Unpublished first-year student report, 2008. 62. Industry’s Humanitarian Support Alliance NGO (IHSAN) website. Available: http://www.ihsan-h2o.org. 63. K. Wobbe, Private correspondence, May 10, 2010. 64. C.M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. 65. G.A. Moore, Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers. New York: Harper, 2002. 66. M.E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press, 1985. 67. M.E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press, 1990. 68. E. Taylor, et al., Encouraging Industry-University Partnerships, Kaufman Foundation, 2008. Available: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/EAC_UIP_ report_v4.pdf. 69. National Business Incubator Association, NBIA.org, 2010. Available: http:// www.nbia.org.

CHAPTER 10

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING MICHAEL A. GENNERT, FRED J. LOOFT, and GRÉTAR TRYGGVASON

10.1 INTRODUCTION As technology changes, the occasion sometimes arises when a new engineering field that either addresses a new technology, combines current areas in a new way, or both, is needed. Not all new degree programs have succeeded but a few, such as Aerospace Engineering and Computer Science, were exactly what the relevant industry needed at the time of their introduction. In addition to meeting emerging needs, a new degree program allows curricular and pedagogical innovations that are more difficult to implement in mature programs. Thus, the introduction of successful new degree programs often parallels the development of new transformative technologies [1]. Robotics—the combination of sensing, computation, and actuation in the real world—is emerging as one of the “hottest” new area of technology. The decreasing cost and increasing availability of sensors, computing devices, and actuators is opening up opportunities for new devices and products that are limited only by our imagination. These new robotic products will ease our lives by obeying our commands and anticipating our needs. They will be the robots envisioned by futurists of the past, although often in a form that has no resemblance to C3PO, R2D2, or ASIMO. Robotics is already a large industry. Over a million industrial robots are currently estimated to be in operation and in 2007, when over a hundred thousand new industrial robots were sold; the annual market size was estimated to be around $18 billion, including software, peripherals, and

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

179

180

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

installation [2]. The market for service robots is about half of this, but predicted to grow faster. The National Intelligence Council has identified Robotics to be one of the six disruptive technologies [3]; the DoD roadmap for unmanned systems calls for a larger role for robots and autonomous vehicles [4]. While industrial and military robots currently heavily drive commercial robotics, the emergence of a consumer market is inevitable [5]. Indeed, technology leaders like Bill Gates believe that soon there will be robots in every home [6]. In Massachusetts, robotics is a fast growing billion-dollar industry that employs thousands of people [7]. Nondefense applications are in abundance and include, for example, security, transportation, elder care, automation of household tasks, customized manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and interactive entertainment. Engineers currently working in the robotics industry are primarily trained in Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, or Mechanical Engineering. However, robotics is inherently interdisciplinary and no single discipline provides the full breadth demanded as new applications become more sophisticated. Truly smart robots rely on information processing, decision systems and artificial intelligence (computer science), sensors, computing platforms, and communications (electrical engineering), and actuators, linkages, and mechatronics (mechanical engineering). To develop succesful products, some training in management is also important and a science and social science background could be important as well to tap into applications in the biological sciences and medicine, for example. To educate young engineers for the robotics industry, in the spring of 2007 Worcester Polytechnic Institute introduced a BS degree program in Robotics Engineering (RBE). In addition to meeting the needs of the emerging robotics industry, the introduction of the degree was motivated by the strong interest in robotics among precollege students, as demonstrated by the large number of robotics competitions currently in existence. In 2008, for example, the four competitions sponsored by FIRST engaged 160,000 youth participants (6–18 years old) who with the assistance of 73,000 mentors and volunteers built over 13,000 robots. The students came from all 50 states and 36 other countries [8]. Botball robotic soccer competitions have included over 40,000 students to date [9]. Other robotics events, such as BattleBots IQ [10], Robocup, and Boosting Engineering, Science and Technology (BEST) Robotics with over 10,000 students involved annually [11], also demonstrate the high level of interest in robotics. The robots.net Robotics Competition web page lists over 120 competitions in 2009 [12]. Thus, a degree program in robotics should provide a particularly attractive entry point for young people interested in

EDUCATION IN ROBOTICS

181

an engineering career. We note that while the term mechatronics has already been used to capture the fusion of mechanical and electrical engineering—with computing presumably implied—and that while mechatronics engineering degrees have been introduced in Japan, Europe, and elsewhere, robotics has an intuitive appeal and familiarity not captured by the more unfamiliar mechatronics. Indeed, mechatronics has not caught on in the US.

10.2 EDUCATION IN ROBOTICS Although robotics has not existed as an undergraduate degree program in the US until now, several universities have offered courses in robotics for three decades or more and a number of introductory level text books have been written. Proliferation of industrial robots on assembly lines in the 1980s motivated the introduction of courses in robotics in Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering programs and classical books, such as Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control [13] focused primarily on manipulator dynamics and kinematics. In Computer Science, cognitive aspects of robotics were seen as an application of AI, such as in The Psychology of Computer Vision [14]. During the 1990s additional courses were introduced with more sophisticated control theories (fuzzy neural network controllers and adaptive controllers) being the newer focus [15]. In the late 1990s and during the first year of the new century, advanced courses on robotics dealt with path planning, navigation, autonomy, communication, and all aspects of mobile robots [16]. At the same time, the development of robotic kits, such as Lego [17,18] and BOE-bot [19], have made robotics much more accessible, not only to college students but also to younger students. Currently, several universities offer courses focusing on various aspects of robotics. Those include Mechatronics course, such as ME307 Mechatronics and Measurement Systems at Colorado State University, which uses Mechatronics and Measurement Systems by Alciatore and Histand [20], supplemented by an extensive laboratory manual [21]. Harvey Mudd College introduces students to computational interaction with the physical environment in a course called CS154 Robotics, which was developed with partial support of a DUE grant from NSF. It uses the text Probabilistic Robotics by Thrun et al. [22], which has also been successfully used at Stanford University. The course at Stanford, CS329 Statistical Techniques in Robotics, explores mobile robotics from a statistical perspective and enables students to understand the limitations and capabilities of applying statistical analysis

182

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

techniques to mobile robots. Introduction to Autonomous Mobile Robots by Siegwart and Nourbakhsh [23] has been successfully used at CMU in the course CS16761 Introduction to Mobile Robots, which introduces students to the fundamentals of mobile robotics, spanning mechanical, motor, sensory, perceptual and cognitive layers. The course website provides detailed information about the course, including the syllabus, robot platforms, and programming [24]. A repository of robotics courses may be found at http:// roboticscourseware.org/. Other examples of undergraduate level courses in robotics are easily found by searching on the Internet. While robotics engineering at the undergraduate level has traditionally been embedded in traditional engineering programs or computer science and thus generally treated as an application, rather than a separate discipline, a few US universities have introduced graduate degrees in robotics. For example, the Robotics Institute at CMU awarded the first PhD in robotics in 1990. Recently, the University of Pennsylvania introduced a MS degree programs in 2006, followed by the University of Michigan in 2008 and South Dakota School of Mines in 2009. A doctoral program in robotics was established at the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2007.

10.3 THE ROBOTICS ENGINEERING BS PROGRAM AT WPI The development of the WPI Robotics Engineering program started in 2005 with a small group of faculty from the departments of Computer Science (CS), Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), and Mechanical Engineering (ME) that met regularly to prepare a proposal for the degree. The WPI faculty approved the degree in the fall of 2006 and the Board of Trustees in March of 2007. The program was announced to potential students during the winter of 2007 and admission open-house presentations drew a large number of attendees. Although the window between the formal approval of the program and the deadline for admitting students was relatively short, students admitted in the fall of 2007 had the option of declaring the program as an intended major and many did so. The program was formally launched through a 1-day symposium in October 2007 [25] that featured several invited speakers and drew attendees from industry and academia, in addition to students from local high schools. The symposium was accompanied by the first meeting of the program advisory board, composed of representatives from the robotics industry. The degree program was advertised by a short video segment shown at the FIRST competition in the Atlanta, GA in April 2008 and by several presentations to potential students.

THE ROBOTICS ENGINEERING BS PROGRAM AT WPI

183

10.3.1 Degree Overview, Objectives, and Outcomes The faculty group advocating the new degree program decided early on to take a top-down approach to the design of the curriculum, starting with goals and objectives. It was clear to all participants that while Robotics Engineering would draw heavily from Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, it was also obviously true that the program would not simply be the sum of the material covered in these disciplines. Rather, defining robotics engineering as a separate discipline involved selecting material from the three disciplines that defined the core body of knowledge for robotics. This involved making a distinction between what every robotics engineer must know and what could be useful for some robotics engineers. Thus, while a robotic engineer might conceivably at some point need material covered in courses in thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, for example, the group decided that these topics did not belong in the core body of knowledge. The same consideration applied to semiconductor devices and electromagnetic fields from electrical engineering, for example, and databases from computer science. Similarly, the group attempted to identify material that might be considered optional in CS, ECE, or ME, but should be required in Robotics Engineering. Although the intention is to review the robotics curriculum periodically, the reality is that the initial selection is likely to form the core of the curriculum for a long time and this selection thus defines robotics engineering as an undergraduate engineering discipline.

10.3.1.1 Educational Program Objectives The educational program objectives are intended to define the context and the content of the program: The Robotics Engineering Program strives to educate men and women to .

. .

.

Have a basic understanding of the fundamentals of Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Systems Engineering. Apply these abstract concepts and practical skills to design and construct robots and robotic systems for diverse applications. Have the imagination to see how robotics can be used to improve society and the entrepreneurial background and spirit to make their ideas become reality. Demonstrate the ethical behavior and standards expected of responsible professionals functioning in a diverse society.

The group also adopted the standard ABET program outcomes to make the program accredidable under the “General Engineering” ABET (a–k) criteria [26].

184

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

10.3.2 Program Structure and Curriculum Research on engineering education has provided considerable insight into how to keep students interested, deliver the material effectively, and stimulate creativity. We have attempted to use some of these findings in designing our curriculum. We know that the structure of the curriculum plays an important role in overall student satisfaction and retention and that an early introduction to engineering generally helps [27,28,29]. We also know that different teaching methods appeal to different learner types but generally all people learn more in an environment where the material is presented in a variety of ways [30,31], and that creativity and innovation can be taught, or at least stimulated, in a properly structured course [30,32,33,34]. The core of the Robotics program consists of five new courses: an entrylevel course (first year) and four “unified robotics” courses (sophomore and junior years) based on a “spiral curriculum” philosophy where the students are engaged in increasingly complex designs and various technical topics are introduced as needed. These courses need to be taken in order and each builds on the preceding courses. Thus, although all the RBE courses are open to students from other disciplines, the prerequisite requirements make it difficult for nonprogram students to take all but the first two or possibly three. In addition to the RBE program courses, other courses are required from each of the participating departments to ensure technical breadth and strength. Each of the new RBE program courses includes elements from CS, ECE, and ME. To add cohesion within courses, each course in the unified sequence has its own focus, such as locomotion, sensing, manipulation, and navigation. The new required RBE courses are RBE 1001. Introduction to Robotics: Multidisciplinary introduction to robotics, involving concepts from the fields of electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and computer science. Topics covered include sensor performance and integration, electric and pneumatic actuators, power transmission, materials and static force analysis, controls and programmable embedded computer systems, system integration and robotic applications. Laboratory sessions consist of hands-on exercises and team projects where students design and build mobile robots. RBE 2001. Unified Robotics I: First of a four-course sequence introducing foundational theory and practice of robotics engineering from the fields of computer science, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. The focus of this course is the effective conversion of electrical power to mechanical power, and power transmission for purposes of locomotion, and of payload manipulation and delivery. Concepts of energy, power, and kinematics will be applied. Concepts from statics

THE ROBOTICS ENGINEERING BS PROGRAM AT WPI

185

such as force, moments, and friction will be applied to determine power system requirements and structural requirements. Simple dynamics relating to inertia and the equations of motion of rigid bodies will be considered. Power control and modulation methods will be introduced through software control of existing embedded processors and power electronics. The necessary programming concepts and interaction with simulators and Integrated Development Environments will be introduced. Laboratory sessions consist of hands-on exercises and team projects where students design and build robots and related subsystems. RBE 2002. Unified Robotics II: Second of a four-course sequence introducing foundational theory and practice of robotics engineering from the fields of computer science, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. The focus of this course is interaction with the environment through sensors, feedback, and decision processes. Concepts of stress and strain as related to sensing of force, and principles of operation and interface methods for electronic transducers of strain, light, proximity and angle will be presented. Basic feedback mechanisms for mechanical systems will be implemented via electronic circuits and software mechanisms. The necessary software concepts will be introduced for modular design and implementation of decision algorithms and finite state machines. Laboratory sessions consist of hands-on exercises and team projects where students design and build robots and related subsystems. RBE 3001. Unified Robotics III: Third of a four-course sequence introducing foundational theory and practice of robotics engineering from the fields of computer science, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. The focus of this course is actuator design, embedded computing, and complex response processes. Concepts of dynamic response as relates to vibration and motion planning will be presented. The principles of operation and interface methods for various actuators will be discussed, including pneumatic, magnetic, piezoelectric, linear, stepper, and so on. Complex feedback mechanisms will be implemented using software executing in an embedded system. The necessary concepts for real-time processor programming, reentrant code, and interrupt signaling will be introduced. Laboratory sessions will culminate in the construction of a multimodule robotic system that exemplifies methods introduced during this course. RBE 3002. Unified Robotics IV: Fourth of a four-course sequence introducing foundational theory and practice of robotics engineering from the fields of computer science, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. The focus of this course is navigation, position estimation,

186

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

and communications. Concepts of dead reckoning, landmark updates, inertial sensors, vision and radio location will be explored. Control systems as applied to navigation will be presented. Communication, remote control, and remote sensing for mobile robots and telerobotic systems will be introduced. Wireless communications including wireless networks and typical local and wide-area networking protocols will be discussed. Considerations will be discussed regarding operation in difficult environments such as underwater, aerospace, hazardous, and so on. Laboratory sessions will be directed toward the solution of an openended problem over the course of the entire term. The Introductory course is aimed at first year students and the goal is to give a broad but relatively shallow introduction to robotics and to introduce hands-on project work. The course serves as an introduction to the excitement and challenges in engineering and is suitable for students in essentially any engineering discipline. Although most students in the RBE program take this course in the freshman year, it is not formally required and only counts toward the “engineering electives.” Thus, a student with an extensive experience with high school robotics competitions and strong technical background could start with the unified robotics sequence. The sophomore-level courses (RBE 2001 and 2002) emphasize the technical foundations of robotics as detailed in the course description and the laboratory assignments, completed by teams of 2–3 students, are based on VEX Classroom Laboratory Kits. The students are also provided with additional DC motors, H-bridge motor drives, and custom-made mechanical parts as needed. In addition to Cþþ: How to Program by Deitel and Deitel [35], a custom textbook, which combines selected chapters from Design of Machinery by Norton [36] and Fundamentals of Electrical Engineering by Rizzoni [37], is used for the RBE 2001-2002 sequence. The junior-level courses (RBE 3001 and 3002) provide a much more deeper coverage of robotics, emphasizing the theoretical foundations. Instead of the hardware and software kits used in the earlier courses the students now must rely heavily on standard industrial components. The components are, however, provided to the students. The philosophy behind the content and design of this resource package is to provide a development environment that is structured enough to avoid students wasting time troubleshooting unreliable equipment, and yet is unstructured enough that nontrivial design decisions are made by students. The components are chosen to simplify assembly and interface concerns at the mechanical, electrical, and software levels, but it is not a kit with the structure and the limitations that such kits pose [38,39]. In addition to the textbooks required

THE ROBOTICS ENGINEERING BS PROGRAM AT WPI

187

for the sophomore courses, course notes covering more advanced topics are distributed in class. The laboratory exercises in all four courses are tightly integrated with the rest of the course and provide a nearly instant reinforcement of what is covered in the lectures. All the RBE courses consist of four lectures per week and one 2-hour laboratory session. In addition to the four unified robotics courses, the RBE program students are required to take several other courses, although following the general WPI philosophy those requirements are stated in terms of subjects, rather than specific courses—whenever possible. Before listing the RBE program requirements it is important to note the peculiarities of the WPI academic calendar where each semester is split into two seven-week terms (essentially 7-week quarters, A–B–C–D), during which students take three very intense courses. Terms A and B are taught in the fall (September to December) and terms C and D are taught in the spring (January to April). ABET requires one and a half years of engineering science and design which is equivalent to 18 courses. The WPI capstone project historically corresponds to three courses (one quarter of the academic year), leaving students with 15 courses in their engineering major. Of those courses the students must take at least five courses in Robotics Engineering (the introduction course plus the unified sequence, for example), three courses in Computer Science, including Algorithms and Software Engineering, two courses in Electrical and Computer Engineering, including Embedded Systems, and one course in Statics and one course in Controls. This leaves three elective engineering courses that must come from a list of approved courses. One of those must address advanced system concepts and the other two often include introduction to programming, advanced design, or industrial robotics. For students skipping the introductory course, several advanced courses in the three sponsoring departments have been crosslisted with RBE and new upper- and graduate-level RBE courses are being offered, allowing students to take one of those to satisfy the requirement for a minimum of five RBE courses. Like all majors at WPI (see Chapter 8), the program culminates in a capstone design experience wherein students synthesize their accumulated knowledge in a major project. The students must also fulfill the WPI general educational requirements, which consist of 6 courses in the humanities, 2 in social sciences, 12 courses in mathematics and sciences (1 year as required by ABET), and a 3 course equivalent junior project. The mathematics and sciences sequence must include Differential and Integral Calculus, Differential Equations, Discrete Mathematics, and Probability and at least two physics courses. In a new industry, there are enormous opportunities for new ideas and new products. To encourage students to become “enterprising engineers” (see Chapter 1; [40]), we require a course in Entrepreneurship. Although

188

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

one course certainly is not sufficient for those who intend to form their own businesses, we strongly believe that engineers need to “think outside the cubicle” and must understand the business contexts within which they operate. This is important not only for entrepreneurs who deal with venture capitalists, lawyers, and other financial and marketing resources to start up new companies but also for “intrapreneurs” who generate new business ideas and plans to present to senior management within their existing companies. Thus, this course could include identifying ideas for new businesses, feasibility analysis, evaluation for appropriateness, and business plan development. Industry has reacted with great enthusiasm to the entrepreneurship component. Robotics has always inspired fear as well as awe. While we certainly have not faced the issues confronted by Asimov’s Dr. Calvin [41], it is clear that massive autonomy will change our live in possibly more profound ways than electricity and the Internet and raise profound and possibly disturbing questions. The massive deployment of robots on the battlefield, for examples, raises questions ranging from how we relegate the decision to take a life to a machine to how notions of courage and bravery change as robots fight our battles [42]. Industrial robots have already changed manufacturing but a significant drop in cost and increase in capabilities might lead to an even more dramatic change in the cost of “stuff.” In any case, the robotics engineer must be aware of such concerns and sensitive to the need to integrate societal concerns into his or her designs. Thus, we explicitly require all students to take a course addressing the impact of technology on society.

THE ROBOTICS ENGINEERING BS PROGRAM AT WPI

189

190

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

In addition to taking courses, WPI requires all students to complete a senior-level project in their major field of study. Only a brief synopsis will be presented here since a more thorough review is provided elsewhere in this book (see Chapter 8). For RBE students, the senior project constitutes a capstone design experience in Robotics Engineering. Students typically work in teams of two to four students, although single-person projects and larger teams are also possible. A faculty member in the major advises the work. Students are expected to take relevant coursework before the project begins. The project work itself typically starts with a formal project proposal, including literature review, clearly defined approach, and schedule with milestones. Projects conclude with a report and presentation to faculty and students. Many project reports become conference papers; having students at all levels as coauthors is highly valued at WPI. Project ideas come from several sources: faculty may have topics that relate to their research or other interests, industry often sponsors projects (and is charged a project fee for the privilege), and students may explore their own project ideas with faculty approval. Industry sponsored projects are particularly valuable since the sponsor gets a close look at a potential future hire and also gets the opportunity to implement a small project that they otherwise lack the staff to commit to. Students enjoy the experience and find themselves well prepared for future employment or graduate school. Even before the introduction of the RBE program, students from various majors have been working on robotics projects, such as a solar-cell/rechargeable fuel cell powered robot and a roof inspection robot. In Figure 10.1 we show the fraction of each component of the RBE curriculum as a pie chart, to allow the reader to more clearly see the size of each curricular component.

ASSESSMENT

191

FIGURE 10.1 The RBE program requirements. ES stand for Engineering Science, which includes statics, stress analysis, and dynamics. ABET requirements denotes 1 year of mathematics and sciences as required by ABET.

10.3.3 Sample Schedule While the RBE program adheres to the WPI expectation of program flexibility, it requires students to carefully plan their program to enable them to complete all requirements and take required courses when they are offered. With the caveat that the schedule of most students differ to at least some degree, we show below a sample schedule for a student taking the introductory course and immediately moving into the unified robotics sequence in the sophomore year (Figure 10.2).

10.4 ASSESSMENT The RBE program has only been in existence for a short time and while we have every intention of assessing its success in a variety of ways, for the most part there is little data yet. The most critical question: will there be student interest does, however, appear to have been answered in the affirmative (see discussion below). This is, obviously, the feedback that we are most interested in at this stage of program development. We have also received both formal (student evaluations) and informal feedback on the new courses. The feedback is generally very positive, although there have naturally been a few minor “bumps.” Perhaps the most interesting feedback, and the one we are currently working on, is that the student are anxious to see robotics applications very tightly woven into the presentation of essentially all the course material.

192

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

Year A Term

B Term

C Term

D Term

MA 1022

MA 1023

MA 1024

PH 1110/1

HUA

HUA

ECE 2022

HUA

RBE 1001

CS 1101

PH 1120/1

RBE 2002

HUA

MA 2051

CS 2022/MA 2201

HUA

ECE 2801

HUA

ES 2501

CS 2223

MA 2621

SS

Social Sci.

Elective

CS 3733

RBE 3001

RBE 3002

Elective

Elective

IQP

IQP

IQP

Elective

Elective

Free

Free

Entrepreneurship

Elective

Elective

MQP

MQP

MQP

Freshman MA 1021

Sophomore RBE 2001

Junior ES 3011

Social

Senior

Implications Free Free

FIGURE 10.2 A sample schedule showing how students can obtain a BS degree in Robotics Engineering. MA identifies mathematics courses, PH is physics, HUA is humanities and arts, SS is social science, IQP is three-course equivalent junior project, and Free is free electives. The Robotics program consists of robotics (RBE), computer science (CS), electrical and computer science (ECE), and engineering science (ES) courses, an entrepreneurial course, a three-course equivalent senior project (MQP) and Electives. In the WPI academic calendar, each semester is split into two 7-week terms, during which students take three very intense courses. Terms A and B are taught in the fall (September to December) and terms C and D are taught in the spring (January to April).

Given the somewhat abstract way that the engineering sciences are often introduced, ensuring that a possible context is always included will require some work. Since the initiation of the RBE major, RBE 1001, RBE 2001, and RBE 2002 have been taught several times with some “tweaking” occurring along the way. RBE 3001 and RBE 3002 were taught for the first time during the 2008/2009 academic year. Student course evaluations generally indicated a high level of student satisfaction with the courses, particularly for RBE 1001 and RBE 2002 (generally well over 4, on a scale of 1–5). Ratings for RBE 2001 have been high, but slightly lower. As expected, the overall satisfaction with the course usually correlates well with the students rating of the instructor. The students

INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT

193

are also asked how many hours they spend on the course and a significant fraction of the students report spending over 21 h per week on the course. On the average, this fraction is highest for RBE 2001, suggesting that the reason for a somewhat lower overall satisfaction with that course is that the workload may be perceived to be higher than in other comparable course. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this may in fact be the case. A review of the program, focusing mostly on the content and structure of the unified robotics sequence has been carried out twice, in the summer of 2008 and 2009, consisting of a meeting of all the faculty involved in the program. While several operational issues have been identified and addressed, the reviews have not unearthed any major shortcoming in the program. The major problems that have emerged have had to do with the diverse background of the students and the need to advise students to select courses early on to address areas where they may be weak. Many students entering the program do, for example, have some programming background and experience in using CAD systems. Others do not and need to take courses providing the necessary proficiency.

10.5 INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT For a private university such as WPI, the ability to attract a large number of high-quality students is of paramount concern. The institute is a long-time supporter of the FIRST and other robotics competitions. Even before the introduction of the RBE program, WPI had staff dedicated to such support. The introduction of the robotics program and its success has required additional support. So far the institution has hired one technician, one nontenure track instructor who has devoted a significant time to both course development and instructions, and two new faculty members. Most of the development and instructional workload has, however, been born by the faculty from the sponsoring departments and is being addressed through strategic hiring. We have monitored carefully the impact of the introduction of the program on the enrollment at WPI as a whole and in the majors supporting the program. Students entering WPI in the fall of 2007 had the opportunity to declare Robotics Engineering as their major, even though the program had only been “on the books” since the previous spring. It should be noted, however, that students entering WPI do not have to declare a specific major (and a large number come in without doing so) but most do declare near the end of their first year. Table 10.1 shows the number of declared majors in the fall of 2007 and 2008 for the RBE program as well as Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering. Also shown is the total

194

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

size of the entering class for WPI as a whole and the number of first-year students declaring an interest in engineering but who have not selected a specific major. Generally there are a large number of undeclared students in the fall, many of which have selected mechanical engineering as they start their sophomore year. In the fall of 2007, when the RBE program had just started, the RBE program had a relatively small number of students. As incoming students decided their major the number grew rapidly and by the fall of 2008, the sophomore class had 47 students. Several juniors had also switched into RBE and a few seniors. Although we do not have detailed data on where the juniors came from, the numbers for the rest of the majors indicate that they most probably came from ME, which lost 21 students from the class of 2010, CS, which lost 13, and ECE, which lost 6. For the most part the introduction of the RBE major seems to have had little impact on the majors selected by the class of 2011, where both ECE and CS saw increases over the previous year and ME saw only a small decrease that fell well within the range of the usual fluctuations in class size. While Table 10.1 shows a snapshot of enrollment each fall, it is not necessarily indicative of the freshman class, many of whom are undeclared or change majors. For example, the 7 RBE majors in the class of 2011 who entered in fall 2007 had mushroomed to 47 a year later. Similarly, by the middle of their freshman year, the 26 freshmen in the class of 2012 had grown to 68 students (not shown). While it is difficult to detect any major effect of the RBE program on the enrollment in the other engineering programs at WPI, its effect on the overall enrollment has been dramatic. WPI has recently embarked on a plan to expand TABLE 10.1 Enrollment as Reported at the Fall of 2007 and 2008 by the WPI’s Registrar Major

Year

Class Year 2012

RBE ME CS ECE

WPI

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

2011

7 47 99 114 131 69 75 60 71 66 79 Total entering: 808 Total entering: 918 28

2010

2009

4 22 165 144 65 52 72 66

5 3 139 143 57 59 76 92

Engineering undecided: 140 Engineering undecided: 167

CONCLUSIONS

195

its incoming class size and the intention was to enroll about 800 students in the class of 2012. The institution competes for students with several well-known technological universities and usually admits a significantly larger class than eventually enrolls. Nevertheless, the institution uses relatively well-tested admission and financial aid strategies to achieve the target class size and has a long history of successfully enrolling very close to the target class size. In 2008, however, about 100 more students than expected enrolled, coming from a geographically more diverse area than in earlier years. While the reasons could be many, there is little doubt that the introduction of the RBE major and the publicity that its introduction generated contributed significantly to this increased popularity of the institution. The presence of the RBE program has lead to a number of other activities on campus that would probably not have taken place in the absence of the new major. Those include an NSF—funded Robotics Innovations Competition and Conference (RICC) taking place in the fall of 2009, with the goal of fostering the invention of innovative and useful robotics applications. Similarly, the introduction of the major has lead to the formation of a robotics honor society, aptly named Rho Beta Epsilon (RBE) that will likely induct its first official members in the fall of 2009. In addition to the undergraduate Robotics Engineering degree program described here, we have also recently introduced a Masters degree program and expect to introduce a doctoral program shortly. The MS program is a natural continuation of the introduction of the undergraduate degree, with several undergraduate students already expressing interest in continuing directly to a MS degree. Similarly, as WPI hires faculty whose research focus is exclusively in robotics, a doctoral program provides a vehicle for these faculty members to attract students and develop high-level research programs.

10.6 CONCLUSIONS The introduction of the Robotics Engineering Program at WPI was motivated by two considerations: student interests and the needs of industry. In designing the program we have attempted to include as many new insights into what makes engineering education exciting and attractive to students as possible. Thus, we start the students early, we keep the instruction as relevant to applications as possible, and we include extensive project work and teamwork experience. While those aspects are also found in other academic programs at WPI, designing a new program gave us the opportunity to rethink the integration of these components into specific courses and experiment with new course formats. In the process of designing the curriculum we have also had to decide on the body of knowledge for an undergraduate degree in

196

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

Robotics Engineering. We believe that the selections that we have made—and the compromises needed to fit the curriculum into a 4-year degree program— are mostly in line with what mainstream thinking in robotics would produce. The possible exception is our inclusion of societal concerns and entrepreneurship as integral parts of the RBE body of knowledge. We argue, however, that both of those aspects are essential to engineering in the new century and that including both is a sign of things to come, rather than an institutional peculiarity. Those individuals and nations that can convert technological know-how into products will reap the economic benefits of smart electromechanical systems. To do so, technological proficiency is necessary, but not sufficient. The added ingredient is the presence of individuals with the creativity to imagine new products, the preparation to engineer them, and the desire to see the products to market. The new degree program will provide a solid foundation in state-of-the-art technology, give sufficient hands-on experience to build confidence and stimulate the imagination, and foster the entrepreneurial spirit that leads to the establishment of start-up companies and creation of jobs. We firmly believe that Robotics Engineering is what industry needs and what students want. The popularity of the program seems to confirm the latter. To confirm the former, we will have to wait to see how well the graduates of the program do. Given the feedback we have received so far from industry we have every reason to believe that they will do well, not only in industries dedicated to robotics but also in other fields where people with hands-on experience and interdisciplinary and entrepreneurial mindset are needed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The discussion here borrows heavily from two ASEE conference papers [43,44].

REFERENCES 1. C.M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book that Will Change the Way You Do Business. New York: Harper, 2003. 2. IFR, Statistical Department “2007: 6.5 Million Robots in Operation WorldWide,” press release. Worldrobotics.org: Oct 15, 2008. Available: http://www. worldrobotics.org/downloads/2008_Pressinfo_english.pdf. 3. Disruptive Civil Technologies: Six Technologies with Potential Impacts on US Interests out to 2025. Conference Report, National Intelligence Council, April 2008. Available: http://www.dni.gov/nic/confreports_disruptive_tech.html.

REFERENCES

197

4. FY2009-2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, 2nd edn. United States of America, Department of Defense, April 6, 2009. Available: http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/UnmannedHorizons/UMSIntegratedRoadmap2009.pdf. 5. L. Greenemeier, “The Year in Robots,” Scientific American, sec. News: Technology, Dec 28 2007. Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm? id¼2007-year-in-robots. 6. W.H. Gates, III, “A Robot in Every Home,” Scientific American, pp. 58–65, Jan 2007. Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id¼a-robot-inevery-home. 7. Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, Achieving Global Leadership: A Roadmap for Robotics in Massachusetts. Feb 2009. Available: http://www. masstlc.org/roboreportfinal.pdf. 8. FIRST, Annual Report 2008. 2009. Available: http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Annual_Report-Financials/2008_AR_FINAL.pdf. 9. KISS Institute for Practical Robotics, “Botball by the Numbers.” 2010. Available: http://old.botball.org/about-botball/statistics_and_numbers.php. 10. BOTSIQ, “Bots IQ News.” Available: http://www.battlebotsiq.com/news.php. 11. BEST Robotics, Inc. “What is BEST?" 2010. Available: http://www.bestinc.org/ MVC/About/what_is_best. 12. “Robots Contests and Competitions FAQ," Robots.net. Nov 1, 2010. Available: http://robots.net/rcfaq.html. 13. J.J. Craig, Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1986. 14. P.H. Winston and B. Horn, The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. 15. F.W. Lewis, S. Jagannathan and A. Yesildirak, Neural Network Control of Robot Manipulators and Non-Linear Systems. CRC Press, 1998. 16. A. Meystel, Autonomous Mobile Robots: Vehicles with Cognitive Control, vol. 1 Teaneck, NJ: World Scientific, 1991. 17. B. Bagnall, Maximum Lego NXT: Building Robots with Java Brains. Variant Press, 2008. 18. M. Ferrari, G. Ferrari and R. Hempel, Building Robots with Lego Mindstorms: The Ultimate Tool for Mindstorms Maniacs. Rockland, MA: Syngress, 2001. 19. M. Predko, 123 Robotics Experiments for the Evil Genius. New York: McGrawHill/TAB Electronics, 2004. 20. D. Alciatore and M. Histand, Introduction to Mechatronics and Measurement Systems, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. 21. D. Alciatore and M. Histand, Mechatronics and Measurement Systems Laboratory Exercises, 3rd edn. Fort Collins: Kinkos Custom Publishing, 2006. 22. S. Thrun, W. Burgard and D. Fox, Probabilistic Robotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.

198

A NEW DISCIPLINE FOR A NEW CENTURY: ROBOTICS ENGINEERING

23. R. Siegwart and I. Nourbakhsh, Introduction to Autonomous Mobile Robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. 24. R. Siegwart, I.R. Nourbakhsh and D. Scaramuzza, The Book’s Webpage: Introduction to Autonomous Mobile Robots, 2nd. edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. Available: http://www.mobilerobots.org 25. WPI Robotics Engineering, “The WPI Robotics Symposium: Engineering the Revolution,” 2007. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Majors/RBE/ Symposium/index.html. 26. ABET, Inc., ABET., 2010. Available: http://www.abet.org. 27. J., Margolis and, A., Fisher, Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. 28. J., Busch-Vishniac and, J.P., Jaroz, “Can Diversity in the Undergraduate Engineering Population be Enhanched Through Curricular Change.” Woman and Minorities in Science and Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 255–281, 2004. 29. M., Loftus, “Retention is a Big Issue in Engineering Education, and More Schools Are Developing Programs To Keep Students From Dropping Out.” Union in the News, Jan 24 2005. Available: http://www.union.edu/N/DS/s.php? s¼5017. 30. P.C. Wankat and F.S. Oreovicz, Teaching Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993. 31. R.M. Felder, “Resources in Science and Engineering Education.” 2010. Several papers available: http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/. 32. J.L. Adams, Conceptual Blockbusting, 3rd edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1986. 33. H.S. Fogler and S.E. LeBlanc, Strategies for Creative Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995. 34. E. Lumsdaine and M. Lumsdaine, Creative Problem Solving: Thinking Skills for A Changing World. New York: McGraw Hill, 1995. 35. P. Deitel and H.M. Deitel, Cþþ: How to Program, 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009. 36. R. N. Norton, Design of Machinery. New York: McGraw Hill pm, 2003. 37. G. Rizzoni, Fundamentals of Electrical Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. 38. M. Ciaraldi, E. Cobb, F. Looft, R. Norton and T. Padir, “AC 2009- 1161: Designing an Undergraduate Robotics Curriculum: Unified Robotics I and II.” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX, June 14-17 2009. 39. W.R. Michalson, G. Fischer, T. Padir and G. Pollice, “AC 2009-1681: Balancing Breadth and Depth in Engineering Education: Unified Robotics III and IV.” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX, June 14–17 2009. 40. G. Tryggvason and D. Apelian. “Re-Engineering Engineering Education for the Challenges of the 21st Century.” Commentary in JOM: The Member Journal of TMS, Oct 2006.

REFERENCES

199

41. I. Asimov, I, Robot. New York: Spectra, 1991. 42. P.W. Singer, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin Press, 2009. 43. M.J. Ciaraldi, E.C. Cobb, D. Cyganski, M. Gennert, M. Demetriou, F. Looft, W. R. Michalson, B. Miller, Y. Rong, Professor, L.E. Schachterle, K. Stafford, G. Tryggvason and J.D. Van de Ven, “AC 2008-1048: The New Robotics Engineering BS Program at WPI.” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, June 22–25 2008. 44. M. Ciaraldi, E.C. Cobb, D. Cyganski, G. Fischer, M. Gennert, M. Demetriou, F. Looft, W.R. Michalson, B. Miller, T. Padir, Y. Rong, K. Stafford, G. Tryggvason and J.D. Van de Ven, “AC 2009-997: Robotics Engineering: A New Discipline for a New Century,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX, June 14–17 2009.

CHAPTER 11

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER RICHARD D. SISSON and NIKOLAOS A. GATSONIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION Engineering is both a discipline and a profession. At the undergraduate level we expect students to acquire an appreciation for how engineers work, for the quantitative rigor, for the physical foundations, for economic realities, and for the design and realization of physical artifacts. Most of us do not, however, expect that the approximately year and a half devoted to engineering science and design at the undergraduate level gives rise to a professional engineer. Indeed, the Professional Engineering exam is a two-step process; the Fundamentals of Engineering (EIT) exam and the Principles and Practice in Engineering (PE) exam several years later, after the engineer has developed the skills and experience needed to demonstrate professional competency. Unlike many other professions, such as law, architecture and medicine, where an important part of the professional training takes place in a formal educational setting, in engineering we are content to accept on-the-job training. Engineering education at the graduate level has, of course, a long and distinguished history. The first American doctoral degree in engineering was awarded to J. Willard Gibbs in 1863 and engineering currently accounts for about 15% of all doctorates awarded in the United States. Enrollment in graduate programs, both at the masters and doctoral level, shows a (mostly) steady upward trend. Table 11.1 compares the growth in BS, MS, and doctoral degrees between 2000 and 2009 and it is clear that while the number of undergraduate degrees has increased, graduate degrees have increased at a

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

201

202

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

TABLE 11.1 Engineering Degrees in 2000 and 2009 [1] Engineering Degrees 2000 2009 % Increase

BS

MS

PhD

63,820 74,387 16.5%

30,160 41,632 38.0%

5,999 9,083 51.4%

higher rate. Indeed, in 2009 colleges and universities in the United States granted about 56 MS and 12 PhD degrees for every hundred engineering BS degrees [1]. The growth in graduate degrees, both in absolute numbers and as a fraction of undergraduate degrees, suggest that such degrees are highly valued, in spite of the fact that the engineering profession itself requires no graduate education for someone who wants to join their ranks. Graduate education in the United States, particularly in science and engineering, has long been the envy of the world and there is no question that the United States’ predominance in science and engineering owes much to its current graduate education system. However, as the world changes, both due to technological progress and globalization of the economy, it is also clear that both graduate delivery methods and majors have to change. New realities demand new skills and a changing student body requires new approaches. Our success in overcoming technical barriers and reducing the cost of production increasingly shifts the design challenges toward managing user behavior and appealing to the experience of the user. Engineers of the future will increasingly be working in a world where old ideas of value creation become obsolete and new business models are discovered. As the music industry belatedly found, their problem was not so much digital piracy as entrenched thinking— customers are happy to pay for products that align with their desires and iTunes showed that “easy” beats “free” [2]. Professional engineers must understand these realities and be proactive creators of products and procedures that have economic value. As discussed extensively elsewhere in this book, in the future, the United States will no longer enjoy overwhelming economic superiority and the engineer of the twenty-first century will have to work in a competitive environment where companies and markets are global. Again, professional engineers must thrive in this global environment. While technical proficiency will certainly continue to be of outmost importance, the professional engineer must possess a plethora of additional skills needed for success. The quote from the Red Queen to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, is most appropriate: Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!

INTRODUCTION

203

It is our strong belief that the attitude and attributes that the professional engineer will have to master can only be provided by a formal educational program. Engineering educators must appreciate the needs for new skills and design programs that help the graduates acquire such skills. Although the changing world makes it increasingly important that every engineer masters the multitude of skills needed for success, the attributes of successful engineers have been appreciated for a long time. Large corporations, like IBM, have been emphasizing the need for “T-shaped” professionals, with depth in engineering and science, and breadth in business and management. Foundations like the William M. Keck Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation have been supporting the development of Professional Science Masters programs since the late 1990s. These programs include professional training and workplace experience, in addition to the traditional science and mathematics curriculum, at universities and colleges around the country [3]. The U.S. Congress in the America COMPETES Act of 2007 and in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has included funds for the National Science Foundation to encourage the development of new professional masters in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) areas. Support for the professional science master’s programs has come from national organizations, such as the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the National Science Board, the National Governors Association, the Council on Competitiveness, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Association of American Universities, and the Council of Graduate Schools [4]. The ideal graduate program should be designed to support the student during the transition from student to a productive member of the profession. A graduate program should include the study of a broad disciple (biology, chemistry, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or physics, to name but a few) as well as in-depth study on a specific topic (i.e., catalysis, tissue engineering, phase transformations in titanium alloys, or medical data security). In addition, a graduate program should prepare the student for professional practice in his/her discipline. Professional practice requires the graduate to be an effective team member, as well as a team leader; a project manager; an excellent communicator both written and oral; an innovator and an entrepreneur/intrapreneur; and finally, a fundraiser. The graduate should also be acutely aware of the emerging importance of sustainability and green products. Finally, the graduate should have an awareness of global and cultural issues. Not a small order, and certainly a paradigm change compared to conventional graduate programs. Graduate masters education is critical in preparing students for entering the engineering profession. Yet, it often falls in-between other priorities. At teaching oriented institutions the focus is usually on the undergraduate program, which is responsible for most of the tuition income. At institution

204

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

where research is a priority, the focus is usually on the doctoral program and the assumption (or aspiration) is that the student will pursue an academic or research career upon graduation. The MS students provide bodies that allow faculty to teach their favorite graduate course. Where MS education is emphasized, the focus is usually either on revenue generation or the faculty employ masters-level student to help with their research. In the former the result is usually a lack of attention to the specific needs of MS students, and in the latter cases there is often a mismatch between the goals of the students and the expectations of the faculty. We believe that educating students at the masters level is an important goal in its own right and that masters programs need to be designed with the needs of those students in mind. We also believe that doctoral education is critical and pivotal for students who intend to practice engineering as well as those who aspire to academic positions; thus doctoral programs should be structured to provide the best education possible for those students. A doctoral student, who accepts a well-compensated nonresearch position in industry, or other sectors, is just as much of a success as a student who goes on to a research oriented career. In the rest of this chapter, we will examine masters and doctoral degrees separately, but we emphasize that both degrees are on the same continuum and both need to be considered, when we examine the future of engineering graduate education.

11.2 MASTERS DEGREES The challenges facing the professional engineer of the twenty-first century have been discussed. Not only is our technology significantly more complex but also the environment in which the engineer works is also more competitive, more global, and more integrated. Thus, it is not surprising that it is becoming quite clear that an undergraduate degree is not sufficient for those who want to pursue a professional career in engineering. An MS degree is increasingly the de facto requirement for the professional engineer. See for example Duderstadt [5] for a general discussion and the recommendation of ASCE that the MS degree becomes a prerequisite for licensure and professional practice [6]. Table 11.2 shows the growth in MS degrees in several disciplines between 2000 and 2009 and while some fields such as chemical engineering and civil engineering have experienced little increase, in other fields the number has grown significantly. Although undergraduate degrees in engineering certainly will continue to be granted, we believe that the data suggest that the demand for MS degrees will continue to grow and that students will increasingly expect such degrees to be designed to prepare them for professional practice.

MASTERS DEGREES

205

TABLE 11.2 Number of MS Degrees Granted in 2000 and 2009, by Engineering Discipline [1] MS degrees

Aero

BioE

Chem

Civil

CS

ECE

IE

ME

Total

2000 2009

705 1075

476 1396

1161 1084

3530 3659

3573 5373

8,321 11,699

2455 2986

3,399 4,757

30,160 41,632

11.2.1 Meeting the Needs of a Diverse Student Body Master of Science (MS) programs will have to meet the need of four rather different groups: . .

. .

Traditional MS students who enroll on a full-time basis, and leave after receiving their degree. BS/MS students are undergraduates who stay on for an additional year at the same institution under a program that provides a smooth transition from undergraduate to graduate status. Students in a PhD program, who enroll with a BS degree and desire to obtain a MS degree on their way to the doctorate. Part-time students who take courses either on campus, online, or through programs delivering courses at off-campus sites convenient for the student.

Of these four groupings, the growth is in the BS/MS program as well as in part-time MS students. The students who obtain a MS degree along the way to the PhD degree are also growing in numbers as pointed out by the recent data (Table 11.1). In the sections that follow, we discuss specific initiatives that ensure that the graduate of these programs can lead in the twenty-first century. 11.2.1.1 BS/MS Program The BS/MS program enables students to obtain a MS degree during a fifth year, seamlessly and without any disruption immediately after their undergraduate studies. While rules for BS/MS program vary in general they allow some counting of advanced undergraduate courses toward their graduate degree and may require students to take graduate courses during their senior year. At the beginning, a few students pursued the BS/MS programs at WPI. Consistent efforts on behalf of departments achieved great results. For example, the Department of Mechanical Engineering at WPI initiated an effort to educate its undergraduates about the value of the BS/MS program with yearly information sessions, and established a streamlined admission process that involves careful planning of the senior and

206

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

fifth year. The Department also placed efforts to establish a community of BS/MS students and as a result enrollment went from only a few to about a fifth of the senior class. This growth has taken place over the last 5 years, and although the growth rate has slowed down, we believe that the program has now reached a critical mass where students already in the program form a visible community that helps draw in other students. The growth of the program has, naturally, led to some challenges. The most important relates to the mixed audience in graduate courses that are attended by both typical graduates and undergraduates in the BS/MS program. The disparity in the skill level, a proof that most of engineering skills are imparted on the senior year, requires some attention and fine-tuning of courses that can form a bridge between the senior and fifth year. The BS/MS program has been a valuable experience for faculty who have been trained and worked in traditional programs with well-defined boundaries and student populations. Another challenge for the BS/MS program, specific to WPI, is due to the difference in schedules pursued by the undergraduate (7-week term) and the graduate (14-week term) program. Taking graduate courses has been therefore proved somewhat difficult for the undergraduates in the BS/MS program who are accustomed to the fast pace of WPI’s 7-week courses. To address these issues, WPI has aligned the graduate and undergraduate schedule and in addition, the Department of Mechanical Engineering has started to experiment with graduate courses offered on the 7-week term model. Overall, there is every reason to believe that BS/MS program will continue to grow in popularity as the market place is viewing the BS/MS graduate as a professional engineer ready to practice. 11.2.1.2 Part-Time MS Students While we expect BS/MS programs to continue to grow in popularity, it is unlikely that every undergraduate student chooses to, or is able to for a variety of reasons, continue on immediately to earn a MS degree. Many are likely to start to work, only to discover later that they would benefit from a higher degree. As working individuals, many—if not most—are unlikely to be able to return full-time for financial reasons. In many cases companies fortunately offer support for pursuing part-time degrees, as part of benefit packages and retention strategies. In addition to people with engineering undergraduate degrees, part-time MS students may also include students with nonengineering backgrounds, or engineers who want to switch to different fields of engineering. Serving the part-time MS student population may be something that not all engineering schools choose to do, but accommodating part-time students can have significant financial benefits as well as other subtle advantages, stemming from increased visibility at the companies where these students work.

MASTERS DEGREES

207

Such opportunities include employment and intern possibilities for our undergraduate students, research and project opportunities for graduate students, and research opportunities for the faculty. In addition, part-time students who are practicing engineers bring to class real-life experiences from their work environments and thus, enrich faculty perspectives about postgraduate careers in engineering. Overall, serving part-time graduate students is not a mere marketing opportunity and it is important that students come out of the experience not just with a degree but also with a favorable opinion of the institution. The reasons for believing that there is a demand for part-time graduate education include .

. .

.

Track Record at WPI. The division of Corporate and Professional Education has been most successful in marketing certificate programs to companies in the Northeast. Demonstrated growth of institutions that offer part-time adult education. Discussions among engineering educators increasingly focus on the importance of the MS degree for professional engineers [7] and in some disciplines, such as electrical engineering [1] the number of MS degrees is already over half of the number of BS degrees. Significant Growth in Certificates. Often, those seeking new knowledge or possibly changing career paths are ideally suited for such offerings. Four to six thematically related courses are likely exactly what part-time students need to come up to speed in a new or evolving area.

Thus, part-time students are a constituency that is likely to continue to grow in numbers and importance. For institutions that believe that it is their mission to prepare graduates for the engineering profession, this is a market that cannot be ignored. Their needs are, however, likely to differ substantially from the full-time students. Those include . .

.

Their priorities are likely to be centered on their professional career and personal lives. In a conflict, their education is likely to lose out. They are subject to sudden and unforeseen disruptions, such as business trips, that make it impossible for them to meet deadlines, attend classes, and take exams. They are often only free to pursue their education in the evening and during weekends.

To appeal to part-time MS students, universities need to offer programs that are interesting and flexible. These challenges can be met by delivering an educational program to part-time MS students in three ways:

208 . . .

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

The students come to campus to take classes taught either during the day or in the evening. The University offers courses through online distance education. The University goes to the industrial site, usually the students’ workplace, and teaches courses to a group of students.

There are strong indications that direct contact between the instructor and the students will remain a very highly valued component of the education that we deliver. Thus it is unlikely that engineering schools can plan to rely solely on distance education to deliver MS education to working individuals. While the Corporate and Professional Education model seems to work well and considerable potentials for expansion exist, it is also clear that we cannot reach students that work for smaller corporations where the critical mass does not exist. Thus, we need to find creative ways—probably involving flexible and mixed delivery modes—where students in the same class can access course material in different ways. Universities are currently providing education to part-time students in several ways. For example, at WPI, several departments have a long-standing tradition of offering graduate courses in the evenings to accommodate working individuals and a few programs have been offering online courses. The Fire Protection Engineering program at WPI has been particularly successful in serving the needs of part-time students. The program, which is described in more detail in Chapter 12, offers on-campus as well as online courses to locations as far as Australia. Increasingly, other departments at WPI are offering graduate-level courses online, or in a mixed format where regular courses are videotaped and made available to students unable to attend class. At the moment, online classes are usually treated differently from on-campus classes, for administrative purposes, with part of the “ownership” going to the Information Technology division. While that was necessary when the technological challenges associated with online offering were greater, we strongly believe that we have now reached the point that online offering will rapidly become a natural part of offering a course. In addition to serving part-time graduate students by evening and online courses, WPI has made a major effort to reach out to companies who wish to offer their employees the opportunity to take courses on-site. The primary focus of the Division of Corporate and Professional Education is the offering of tailor-made noncredit courses for workforce development. However, CPE has also collaborated with several of the academic departments to offer on-site courses. These offerings are generally set up as certificate programs where BS engineers at a partner company can earn a certificate recognized by the company by taking a given number of courses or as regular MS programs. The courses are usually offered once a week, for several hours, during regular

MASTERS DEGREES

209

working hours. A WPI faculty member travels to the company to give the lectures. In many cases a certificate program is a preamble that leads to enrollment into a MS degree program. We have observed several unintended and beneficial consequences in our involvement with the part-time MS program. One of the most important ones is that faculty members are immersing themselves in a setting other than the campus, and are interfacing with practicing engineers. This has created opportunities for faculty to establish relationships with the industrial sector, and has enriched the teaching experience at the campus. In addition, we have observed increase research collaborations from these interfaces that has benefited all involved.

210

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

MASTERS DEGREES

211

11.2.2 Graduate Internships Well-designed industrial internships at many universities allow graduate students to secure a summer job at a company where they obtain valuable experience. At WPI two of our graduate programs, Fire Protection Engineering and the Metals Processing Institute (MPI), have formalized this experience to not only provide our students with valuable industrial experience but also to help them earn income to support their education. The underlying philosophy of these internship programs is to provide an educational experience that is meaningful to the student, is contextual, and one that instills excellence. The internship program bridges the gap between classroom learning and industrial experience. Unlike co-op programs, the internship program ensures that the industrial internship project is tied in with the academic plan of the student. The MPI internship provides a holistic and contextual educational experience—a new paradigm in graduate education. The WPI graduate internship programs offer a unique experience in graduate education. From the students’ viewpoint, it provides a valuable practical experience as part of the educational process. This experience is similar to the internships for MDs and DVMs who work as an “apprentice for a master.” Specific benefits for the student include . . . . . . .

Students’ knowledge about professional practice and research is strengthened in the laboratory of the real world. The clinical exposure helps integrate theory and practice and enhances the practical significance of textbook offerings. The internship plus the master’s degree can usually be counted for 2 years’ experience toward professional engineer registration. On-the-job experience helps students build confidence, shape individual goals, and make career choices. Internship earnings greatly reduce the financial burden of engineering education. The work experience often provides an environment for identifying and developing topics for thesis and graduate projects. Students can gain access to specialized laboratories not available on campus.

The internship program also provides many benefits to the sponsor with businesses that range from commercial to consulting firms, and from government agencies to research organizations. The benefits to the sponsor include

212 .

.

.

.

.

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

The internship program serves as a source of mature engineering personnel capable of taking on responsible assignments in a professional work environment (all interns have at least a BS degree). For-credit thesis and graduate project work can be oriented toward interests of the sponsor. This mechanism in effect expands the research base and can provide results in areas that might not otherwise be addressed by staff members of the sponsoring organization. The program can help maintain an infusion of new talent. Students and employers can make early assessments of each other without making initial long-term commitments. Valuable linkages are created between the academic and professional worlds. The program strengthens employers’ contact with new ideas, viewpoints, and latest generation technologies. The program improves access to the facilities and capabilities of WPI, including the expertise of the faculty, laboratories and computer support capabilities, software, databases, and library holdings.

11.2.2.1 Graduate Internships in Fire Protection Engineering A unique graduate internship program is available to fire protection engineering students, enabling them to earn income and gain important practical experience. This program helps students earn the master’s degree in fire protection engineering through a combination of practical internship experiences and classroom activities. This approach has proven to be a win–win opportunity for students as well as employers in a host of businesses, agencies, and industries, large and small. The internship has no geographical restrictions and scheduling can be flexible. Specific work-study schedules are decided between the student and the sponsor. 11.2.2.2 Graduate Internships in Metal Processing The program allows students to earn the MS degree in materials science and engineering through a combination of practical internship experiences and classroom activities. The MPI internship program serves as an effective vehicle for developing meaningful relationships among WPI faculty members, students and employers. WPI coordinates the process of bringing students and employers together. While placement is not guaranteed, every effort is made by the Institute to find appropriate work assignments for each qualified student. Final matching and selection are accomplished by direct interview between the sponsor and the student. With mutual agreement between the faculty advisor and the sponsor, work during the employment assignment can be directed toward completion of the student’s thesis or graduate project. If desired, a representative of the sponsor organization can serve on the student’s thesis committee along with two WPI faculty members.

MASTERS DEGREES

213

A key to the success of any internship program centers on regular communication and evaluation among the students, the sponsors, and the faculty. Sponsors are asked to evaluate students’ performance on forms provided by the Institute. Students also evaluate the internship experience during and after specific work assignments. 11.2.3 Enriching the Content Students seeking a graduate-level degree usually have much more specific career plans than incoming undergraduate students. Those plans are usually divers and the students expect to be able to control what they do. In addition to provide flexibility within each degree program, we have introduced a number of degrees aimed at students with a specific need. The absence of accreditation at the graduate level, as well as the broad charter of the Institution, makes the introduction of new graduate degrees relatively simple and often the introduction of a new degree is an excellent way to bridge disciplinary boundaries. The faculty is often more inclined accept flexible requirement for a new degree, rather than change what is required for an established degree. Some of our newer offerings areas follows. 11.2.3.1 Robotics Engineering The newly introduced Robotics Engineering masters and doctoral program programs specifically requires their graduate students to obtain knowledge and experiences in management and systems engineering. This requirement can be met through course work in entrepreneurship, project management, marketing, leadership or innovation. The programs follow the very successful undergraduate program in Robotics Engineering(see Chapter10), and areaimedto graduate individuals who have the background to become leaders in robotics. Many experts believe that robotics has the potential to have an ever-bigger impact on our daily lives than computers and the internet, but developing the products and systems that consumers buy and adopt is going to require much more than just technological know-how. 11.2.3.2 Systems Engineering The WPI MS degree in systems engineering (SE) is an example of a degree originally designed directly in response to the needs of industry. According to INCOSE [8], “systems engineering is an engineering discipline whose responsibility is creating and executing an interdisciplinary process to ensure that the customer and stakeholder’s needs are satisfied in a high quality, trustworthy, cost-efficient and schedule compliant manner throughout a system’s entire life cycle.” The systems engineering program at WPI continues the institute’s traditions by offering a wider range of courses that allow students in different industries and majors to customize their systems engineering degree course of study and focus on different problems from a range of industries.

214

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

The ability to implement a well-structured systems approach to all phases of the life cycle of a complex product has been particularly well received by the defense industry. Indeed, the vast majority of the WPI SE program customers are large, well known, highly integrated, design and manufacturing companies that work in the areas of defense, communications, security, and information technology. Each of the SE program customers typically seeks to create more systems engineering professionals well versed with their particular corporate methods who will help guide the development of enormously complex engineering and information systems, as well as sensitize the general engineering work force, perhaps through a shortened SE certificate program, to understand and appreciate the need for the SE framework used by systems engineers to produce successful products and be competitive in the large systems contract space. Although the degree is currently offered primarily through the Division of Corporate and Professional Education to off-campus industry cohort groups, there is strong motivation because of growing on-campus and full-time student interest to offer the degree on-campus as well. Similarly, the breadth and depth of the program is being continuously expanded from basic and advanced courses in systems engineering to now include topical courses in areas such as systems optimization, system dynamics, reliability engineering, and systems integration and test. Further, because of the demand from industry and the obvious importance of the area, WPI is now planning to develop a complementary program in software systems engineering. In addition to the classical defense, security and information industries, SE as a degree program is representative of the new types of masters-level degrees that are needed to address evolving and emerging highly interdisciplinary and complex areas of engineering such as ubiquitous computing and communications, engineering project innovation and leadership, robotics and autonomous vehicles, and of course advanced medical devices. 11.2.3.3 Power Systems Engineering and Power Systems Management The Power Systems Engineering (PSE) and Power Systems Management (PSM) degrees at WPI are also representative of a new paradigm in postbaccalaureate engineering education. Although the titles of these two degree programs may lead one to believe that they are similar to a power systems masters degree program under the electrical engineering program, they are in fact quite different. The PSM degree program was initially created in response to industry demand for a certificate program in PSM for nontraditional engineering students seeking to retrain as power systems engineers, but with an ability and expectation by their corporate sponsor to function as both a qualified power systems design expert as well as an engineering manager. Most of the

MASTERS DEGREES

215

original candidates for the original certificate program, and now for the PSM master’s degree, were EE/ECE majors who were not classically trained power systems electrical engineering majors or, more commonly, simply not EE or ECE majors (primarily mechanical, information, computer, physics, and other science/engineering majors). Indeed, although most are well beyond their undergraduate program years, they were and continue to be highly motivated and strongly supported individuals seeking to move into a new workforce area and who need retraining. What is unique about the PSM degree is that the required courses are drawn about half each from the power area of electrical engineering (power systems basics, protection, transmission lines, etc.) and from the WPI School of Business (organizational behavior, project management, risk management, etc.). The PSE degree is similar to the PSM degree but with a strong focus on power engineering topics central to the study of classical electrical engineering programs. Additional topics offered as part of the PSE degree include courses in subjects such as Transients in Power Systems, Fundamentals of Power Quality, Power Systems Dynamics and even Advanced Applications of Protective Relaying. PSE majors tend to be primarily EE/ECE undergraduates who had limited exposure to power systems as undergraduates and who now find themselves in need of both the MS degree for career advancement as well as significant retraining in a new career field, but who also want to stay technical and are willing to forego taking the management courses required as part of the PSM degree program. 11.2.3.4 Interdisciplinary Master’s Programs As new fields of research and study that combine traditional fields in innovative ways emerge, the WPI faculty encourage the formation of interdisciplinary graduate programs to meet new professional needs or the special interests of particular students. Such interdisciplinary MS programs are initiated by groups of at least two faculty members from different academic departments who share a common interest in a cross-disciplinary field. Such programs currently include Systems Modeling, Construction Project Management, Impact Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering Management, Power Systems Management, and Materials Systems Engineering. However, the relatively low barrier for the establishment of these degrees is intended to encourage their introduction. 11.2.4 The Professional Master’s Degree The need for a professional MS degree is not unique to engineering, or to the United States. WPI has, in particular, been at the forefront of the national movement to develop Professional Experience in Mathematics for

216

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

students and teachers of mathematics. The goal is to expose students to industrial problems typical of those in which engineers would depend upon mathematics for solutions [9]. In 2000, WPI established a Professional Science Master’s degree inFinancialMathematicsandone inIndustrialMathematics,withsupport from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The Financial Mathematics graduate program was designed to lead students to the frontlines of the financial revolution of the new century. Coursework on mathematics and finance, computational laboratories, industrial internships, and project work equip students with the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary for the quantitative positions in investment banks, securities houses, insurance companies, and money management firms. The Industrial Mathematics program is aimed at training students for professional careers in industrial environments through developing their analysis, modeling, and computational skills. Both programs also develop the students’ communication and business skills, aiming to creating successful professionals for the corporate world. These programs include an industrial experience that is gained through industrial summer internships facilitated by CIMS through its industrial partners and through an industrial project originating from the local industry. All the graduates from these programs have been successfully employed. For example, 36 students completed a master’s degree in the first 10 years of the Financial Mathematics program, and all 36 have been placed in the financial industry. Although professional masters degrees in mathematics and the sciences are by their nature somewhat different from engineering (no licensure and professional certification, for example), the introduction of such degrees is in response to the same need that we expect to drive the increasing need for master’s degrees in engineering. There is, in particular, likely to be considerable commonality in the nontechnical skills that such degrees will require. A professional masters experience is also at the core of the Bologna Process, which is supposed to harmonize higher education in Europe. The agreement requires a three-part structure, bachelor–masters–doctorate, with the older 5-year degrees repackaged into a 3-2 or 4-1 bachelor and master’s degrees. The expectation is that “the Master’s will become the preferred exit point for ‘undergraduate’ education in virtually all fields, academic and occupationally oriented, across the Bologna universe” [10].

11.3 DOCTORAL DEGREES The education of doctoral students—as apprentices to mentors who are doing research—is almost exclusively designed for someone intending on a research career. The reality is, however, that a significant number of graduates pursue other interests. According to a recent study [11], 14% of CEOs in Silicon

DOCTORAL DEGREES

217

Valley hold PhDs and abroad the number can be significantly higher. The same study showed that in Hsinchu Science Park in Taiwan, which hosts 400 companies that in 2007 accounted for 10% of the Taiwan GDP, 28% of the CEOs had a PhD. The number of doctorates in engineering has grown by over 50% in the last decade (from 5999 to 9083) while the number of all doctoral degrees grew by about 20% [1]. WPI has been granting PhDs since 1904. Traditionally, doctoral students at WPI have received a fairly traditional education consisting of advanced graduate courses and research apprenticeship. However, as the doctoral program has grown over the last two decades, the faculty have become increasingly concerned with how to best prepare their students for work in a world that is already very different from when they received their degrees. At a faculty retreat on innovation in 2008, the integration of innovation and entrepreneurship into doctoral education was, for example, a major topic. Although much remains to be done, the Institute has already taken some steps toward offering doctoral candidates a broader preparation. In the material science and engineering, as well as manufacturing programs that are offered by the Department of Mechanical Engineering, the internships available to MS student are also available to doctoral students. These doctoral internships provide the opportunity to have the candidate carry out a good portion of their research work in an industrial setting. For example, within the Metal Processing Institute, in a period of 12 years, we have had over 24 doctoral students in such industrial settings (i.e., Caterpillar, Air Products, Air Liquide, ALCOA, SPX, H.C. Starck, and many others). The students are exposed to an environment where the practice of the engineering profession is experienced. These internships are akin to residencies in the medical profession. Though it is not yet codified and systematized throughout the graduate curriculum, core faculty of MPI have taught minimodules of critical and important topics to the graduate students. Topics such as how to read and analyze corporate annual reports; policy issues that affect society and the profession; the NAE Grand Challenges and the business opportunities these offer to the profession; advocacy issues for the profession; and case studies when the profession abdicated its societal responsibilities. At the weekly MPI staff meetings, in addition to technical presentations and discussions, current issues and topical issues (from Economist, NY Times, etc.) are discussed. Our graduate program is quite international, and we have students from Greece, Romania, India, China, USA, and so on. Last year, during our weekly seminars we have featured students from a particular country to present the educational system of their country, as well as key cultural features that are special. These can vary from Chinese music, to Indian mythology, and so on. Though this does not require a curricular change, it does require a faculty

218

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

champion who will ensure that the environment is conducive to the broadening of the mind of the doctoral students. In a similar manner, the recently introduced doctoral degree in robotics engineering specifically requires their graduate students to obtain knowledge and experiences in the management and systems engineering. This requirement can be met through course work in entrepreneurship, project management, marketing, leadership, or innovation. Although we have taken modest steps so far to change the preparation of students seeking a doctorate in engineering, we believe firmly that advanced engineering degrees at the doctorate level will increasingly be attractive to students who seek to practice professional engineering. In the past, a doctorate has been aimed exclusively at students seeking academic and/or research position and a knowledge of how the “real” world works has been a bonus, at best. In the future every doctoral students must learn to master the nontechnical skills essential for professional success, in part because of increasing competition in academic and research jobs, and in part because PhDs will become bigger players in industry, as developers of advanced technology and entrepreneurs. Specific desired outcomes we are targeting in our doctoral programs are listed and discussed below: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Broad Technical Education in a Discipline In-depth Technical Education in a Focus Area Problem Solving and Brainstorming Innovation and Entrepreneurship Teamwork and Leadership Project Management Oral and Written Communication Industrial/Laboratory Practice Sustainability and Green Products Global Perspective and Awareness of Cultural Issues

11.3.1 Broad Technical Education in the Discipline Broad technical education in the discipline is traditionally provided by courses that require reading, homework, tests, and a final exam. This historical approach has been effective in conveying information but does little to provide experiences in solving practical, open-ended problems. This important learning experience is added to a traditional course setting by practical real-life problems and team projects. The students present progress reports that include problem importance, problem definition, solution planning, expected results,

DOCTORAL DEGREES

219

and benefits from outcomes. Similar to our undergraduate program, the graduate experience at WPI focuses on student-centered and hands-on learning via team projects, industrially relevant homework and class discussions, as well as formal industrial internships. Many graduate courses at WPI have incorporated practical problems and team projects into their syllabi. The faculty’s experience with project-based undergraduate learning is being incorporated into the graduate curriculum. 11.3.2 In-Depth Education in a Focused Area In-depth education in a focused area is typically accomplished by a series of related courses. In addition, many students complete a thesis or a dissertation under the guidance of a faculty advisor, that is, mentor. The thesis or dissertation has been one of the most important learning experiences for the graduate student. When this experience works well, the faculty advisor is a “master” to the student “apprentice.” This master—apprentice relationship usually leads to graduates who are very similar to the advisor in many respects. The thesis, the dissertation, or a graduate project, can greatly benefit from advanced planning that will provide the opportunity for the student to acquire some of the skills required for professional practice. For a graduate project in particular, students develop and use the skills in problem solving, project management, innovation and entrepreneurship in order to plan and execute the project. Global projects and research experiences provide the opportunity to live and work in other countries and cultures. At WPI many of the theses, dissertations, and graduate projects are either funded by industry or focused on real-life problems. As such, they provide the opportunity for in-depth study in a focus area as well the opportunity for experiential learning in key components needed for professional practice. 11.3.3 Problem Solving and Brainstorming Techniques and Methodologies Problem solving and brainstorming techniques and methodologies are very helpful in developing new and creative ideas to address a problem. Students learn these techniques by actively participating as members or leaders in brainstorming sessions during class projects and research experiences. 11.3.4 Innovation and Entrepreneurship Innovation and entrepreneurship are important skills for the economy of the twenty-first century (see Chapter 9 and Ref. [12]). Our students learn the process of innovation (i.e., satisfying a customer need) and entrepreneurship

220

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

(i.e., creating a venture to provide and sell the product), by actively participating in the innovation process during class projects as well as through their theses, dissertations, and directed research. The team practical projects focus on developing a solution to meet a customer need. The teams identify the need, explain their approach to meet the need, explain the benefits of the meeting the need (financial as well as social) and identify the competition and alternatives to the approach. Another goal of these projects is to develop a business plan for the new venture. Knowledgeable faculty and industrial liaisons are the “masters” helping the student “apprentices” to learn these skills. Additional nontraditional mechanisms are also available. Each Spring WPI holds a Graduate Research Achievement Day; each graduate student prepares a poster to present his/her research project. A team of faculty and industry professionals judges the posters. We also hold simultaneously, the Annual Innovation Presentation Competition. Graduate students are asked to prepare a 5-min “elevator pitch” for their project that clearly presents the need, approach, benefits, and alternatives for their project. Online training is provided and faculty advisors work with their students to develop the 5-min pitch. The judges are asked to identify the best 10 pitches as finalists. The following afternoon the finalists present their pitches to a new panel of judges selected from venture capitalists, intellectual property lawyers and entrepreneurs [13]. 11.3.5 Teamwork and Leadership Teamwork and leadership are critical skills for practicing engineers and scientists. The ability to function effectively as a team member or as the team leader can be learned by actively participating in team projects. Team experiences are easily provided in class projects and larger practical projects. Team member effectiveness can be evaluated with the help of techniques already in use in industry and laboratories. Many graduate classes and projects at WPI provide the opportunity to practice and hone a student’s teamwork and leadership skills. In addition students working in larger research groups frequently participate on teams to address large problems with multiple tasks (design and analysis of experiments, model development, and software creation). 11.3.6 Project Management Project management is another important skill for practicing engineers and scientists. The ability to effectively plan, project, make assignments, determine costs and set a schedule are critical for a practicing engineer or scientist. A project management course with active learning should be a part of graduate education. The project management skills will be more fully

DOCTORAL DEGREES

221

developed in course projects and practical project assignments. In several WPI courses that involve a team project the students will practice their project management skills as they plan the project including identifying tasks, developing the schedule and assigning people to complete the tasks. This project planning exercise is also found in some theses, dissertations, and directed research. 11.3.7 Oral and Written Communications Oral and written communications are an important part of every engineer’s and scientist’s work. In Law Schools an important first-year course is “legal writing.” The goal is to teach a student to write like a lawyer. In many large companies, new engineers and scientists are required to participate in a training course on “How to write the Company way.” Similar courses for all students in engineering and science writing need to be developed by technical writers in consultation with practicing engineers and scientists. Oral communications skills need to be presented and assessed in such courses. The student’s communication skills will continuously be honed by reports and presentations in all class and practical projects. Ideally, these reports will be critiqued and edited by practicing engineers and scientists as well as faculty. Graduate students at WPI are provided with many opportunities to learn and develop their communication skills. Many class projects require a final oral presentation as well as a written report. In these classes the students receive feedback and critique from the faculty as well as their fellow students. As is typical in most graduate programs, all theses and dissertations require an oral defense and a written report. Many students also work with their faculty advisors to prepare oral presentations for technical conferences and seminars. Many departments and programs provide additional instruction in communications as a part of their seminar series. 11.3.8 Industrial/Laboratory Practice Industrial/laboratory practice can only be attained on-site. We strive, as part of the academic plan, for each graduate student to work on a practical project as an intern at a company or a laboratory. During this period the student will apply the skills and techniques relevant to professional practice as well participate in that company’s or laboratory’s culture and practices. 11.3.9 Sustainability and Green Products Sustainability and green products will be critical for every company and venture now and in the future. Customers are demanding cost effective,

222

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

sustainable and green products. The graduate students can be introduced to sustainability and green engineering/science in seminars, selected courses, and projects. Several graduate courses at WPI, particularly those addressing the design and materials processing, introduce the concept of sustainability and green engineering/science. Class projects and homework assignments frequently ask the students “is this design or material sustainable?” A new Great Problems Seminar is also being developed at WPI for graduate students following WPI’s unique experience in such seminars for freshmen. The seminar course is titled: Sustainable development for the twenty-first century. These seminars are presented by a team of faculty and address in a unique way outstanding issues that are key to sustainability and greening of products. 11.3.10 Global Perspectives and Cultural Issues Global perspectives and cultural issues are critical to the success of any company or venture. Many products are currently designed on several continents with parts fabricated all over the world and assembled at one site. The ability to manage this global supply chain and effectively deal with the many cultural differences is necessary of all practicing engineers and scientists. Ideally, every student should be given the opportunity to participate in a global practical project. Global projects and research experiences provide the opportunity to live and work in other countries and cultures. WPI as leader in global education for undergraduates, with project sites in several continents is considering a similar model for its graduate students.

11.4 CONCLUSION A comment that we often hear from program managers in research and industrial environments is that “. . . new graduates require several years to become productive members of our group. They only know the theory and have no experience in the application to our practical problems. They do not know how to organize or manage a project and frequently they do not know why the project is important. What are you teaching in your graduate program?” In many programs across the country we favor teaching the fundamentals and expect the graduates to learn the “other” important skills on the job, in the industry, at a national laboratory or a university. However, this twentieth century educational model cannot address comprehensively the research, development, and production needs of the twenty-first century. Science and engineering programs in Asia, India, and South America are providing the same fundamental education and producing graduates who can effectively

REFERENCES

223

compete with U.S. graduates for a fraction of the cost. To remain competitive and relevant to the needs of our economy, graduate schools in the U.S. need to prepare their students for professional practice in this new environment while continuing to provide in-depth technical education. Graduate programs will certainly continue to educate full-time students that seek masters and doctorate degrees, like the ones we are providing now. However, our programs are also going to need to meet the needs of part-time students and students who seek high-level career as engineering professionals, rather than a research oriented career. The delivery of graduate education must become student centric where the time of delivery and the content must cater to the interest and desire of the students we seek to attract. Engineering, like law and medicine, is a profession and it should come as no surprise that the professional training must take place at the graduate level. We believe that student centric delivery of professional masters degrees and doctoral degrees offers enormous opportunities to institutions that are willing to be flexible and imaginative in their offerings. At WPI we have attempted to put in place flexible programs that meet the needs of graduate students preparing for engineering practice. Most of these programs have attracted a significant number of students, demonstrating the demand for our flexible approach. Much more needs to be done. Neither we nor anybody else for that matter, completely understand yet how the flexibility of online degrees can be combined with the quality of programs delivered on campus. We still need significant experimentation and new ideas. Similarly we have not completely figured out how to construct and structure professional doctorate degrees that provide the advanced technological skills needed for advanced positions in industry, and yet command the same respect as the traditional research oriented doctoral degree. WPI is of course not the only institution struggling with these issues. Other institutions, funding agencies, and professional societies are asking the same questions and experimenting with new ideas. Changes to meet new needs and opportunities will disrupt the status quo and are surely going to meet significant oppositions from various vested interests. However, disruptive changes are usually also the openings where new players have a change to enter any field.

REFERENCES 1. Different sources give different numbers. Here we are using numbers from: M. T. Gibbons. Engineering by the Numbers. ASEE, 2010. Available: http://www.asee. org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2009-profile-engineering-statistics.pdf. Other sources include: Digest of Education Statistics: 2009. Washington, DC: IES National Center for Education Statistics. Available:

224

2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/.M. K. Fiegener, “Numbers of Doctorates awarded continue to grow in 2009; indicators of employment outcomes mixed,” National Science Foundation, NSF 11-305, InfoBrief SRS, Nov 2010. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf11305/nsf11305.pdf L. Grossman, “The Men Who Stole the World.” Time Magazine, Nov 24, 2010. Available: http://www.time.com/times/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2032304 _2032746_2032903,00.html. L.B. Sims, Professional Master’s Education, A CGS Guide to Establishing Programs. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools, 2006. Science Professionals, Master’s Education for a Competitive World. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press, 2008. J.J. Duderstadt, Engineering for a Changing World. A Roadmap to the Future of Engineering Practice, Research, and Education, 2007. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan, Millennium Project, 2008. Available: http://milproj.dc. umich.edu:16080/publications/EngFlex_report/download/EngFlex%20Report.pdf. Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice. ASCE Policy Statement 465. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2001 Available: http:// www.neasce.org/pdf/ASCE_Pol_Stat_465.pdf. D. Berkey and B. Vernescu, “AC 2007–2014: A Model for Vertical Integration of Real-World Problems in Mathematics.” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, 2007. A Consensus of the INCOSE Fellows, INCOSE International Council on Systems Engineering, 2010. Available: http://www.incose.org/practice/fellowsconsensus. aspx. P.W. Davis, “WPI Hosts First in Series of SIAM’s regional Math in Industry Workshops.” SIAM News, Sept 15, 1998. Available: http://www.siam.org/news/ news.php?id¼870. C. Adelman, The Bologna Process for U.S. Eyes: Re-learning Higher Education in the Age of Convergence. Institute for Higher Education Policy, April, 2009. Available: www.ihep.org/assets/files/EYESFINAL.pdf. Y.-S. Chang, T.R. Lin, H.-C. Yu and S.-C. Chang, “The CEOs of Hsinchu Science Park,” Research-Technology Management, Nov–Dec 2009. Available: http:// findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6714/is_6_52/ai_n42262104/. C.R. Carlson and W.W. Wilmot, Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want. New York: Crown Business, 2006. WPI, Division of Academic Affairs, “Graduate Research Achievement Days.” 2010. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/Admin/Provost/GRAD/.

CHAPTER 12

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING KATHY A. NOTARIANNI

12.1 INTRODUCTION Few corners of the world are less crowded and developed now than they were even a decade ago. In many places population growth and overcrowding are occurring on a frantic scale, making living conditions increasingly complex and risky. As the pace of development increases around the world, fire prevention and control are becoming more vital for individuals, organizations, and society itself. Educating future generations of engineers about the ways of minimizing fire’s destructive potential has never been more crucial. Other chapters of this book clearly articulate the innovations in engineering education WPI brings to its mission of preparing tomorrow’s engineers and scientists for the grand challenges of the twenty-first century. Nowhere are these qualities more apparent than in the university’s approach to teaching fire protection engineering (FPE). The fire protection engineer must certainly understand fire and the technology available to both prevent and fight fire. In addition, he or she must understand the legal and regulatory environment, the economic realities, and how humans behave, as investors in and, builders of infrastructure, as users and, when things go wrong, as victims of fire. Thus, the fire protection engineer exemplifies the multifaceted approach that we believe will increasingly be required of all engineers, as they deal with the challenges of the new century. Today, as never before, greater fire safety is a priority and it must be achieved at lower cost. In order to accomplish this, the science of both fire

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

225

226

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

behavior and human behavior must be better understood for fire protection engineers to be better prepared. WPI is a leader in these endeavors, working at the intersection of engineering, policy, and economics.

12.2 A MATTER OF LIFE AND LOSS Ever since humankind harnessed the awesome energy of fire, we have lived with its potentially destructive forces as well. The losses from fire entail not only physical damage—death and injury—but property and business losses as well. In the United States alone, the annual cost of fire in 2007 was estimated at nearly $350 billion [1], or about 2.5% of GDP. This staggering figure includes the losses caused by fire and the money spent on fire prevention, protection, and mitigation measures to prevent further losses. Economic loss (property damage)—reported or unreported, direct or indirect—represents only $18.6 billion of this total. The net costs of insurance coverage ($17.2 billion), the cost of maintaining career fire departments ($36.8 billion), building costs for fire protection ($61.5 billion), other economic costs ($42.3 billion), the monetary value of donated time from volunteer firefighters ($128 billion), and the estimated costs incurred in the deaths and injuries sustained due to fire ($42.4 billion) all exceed property losses. Fire causes more deaths and injuries per year, an order of magnitude greater than all natural disasters combined, though often tragedies such as hurricanes and earthquakes generate more headlines [2,3]. However, until the 1970s, the principles of science and engineering to prevent and respond to fire had not been widely implemented. Over the past several decades, educators have applied a variety of principles in engineering and science from a wide range of disciplines in order to better understand the behavior of fire and to minimize its negative impacts. Thus, the field of FPE was born in academe.

12.3 A LONG HISTORY OF INFLUENCE In the late 1970s, with high expectations WPI took a leadership role in this movement by establishing a graduate degree program in FPE with high expectations. Though the program was officially established in 1979, WPI was contributing to the fire protection movement as early as the nineteenth century, starting not long after WPI’s founding in 1865. One of the earliest references to fire protection engineering as a discipline appeared in the WPI Journal in 1898. At that time, Henry Lucian Phillips, WPI Class of 1893, wrote: “It’s safe to prophesy that not many years will lapse before

A LONG HISTORY OF INFLUENCE

227

scientific colleges will seriously consider this subject (fire protection engineering) and include regular lectures or courses upon it in their curriculum.” Little did Phillips know that 81 years later his alma mater would be the first U.S college to establish the graduate degree program in fire protection engineering in the United States. Phillips also served as the seventh president of the National Fire Protection Association and was an early leader in the Factory Insurance Association (later Industrial Risk Insurers, now GE GAPS). Ten years after Phillips wrote about fire protection engineering, George I. Rockwood, Class of 1888, founded the Rockwood Sprinkler Company in Worcester. In 1892, Simplex Time Recorder Company was founded by Edward B. Watkins, Class of 1886. Later Simplex became a world leader in fire detection and alarm systems. In 1940, Howard W. Freeman, Class of 1940, joined Rockwood as its first head of the Research and Development Department. Freeman earned more than 20 patents for fire protection devices, including what became the U.S. Navy water fog nozzle, credited with saving dozens of naval vessels and thousands of seamen during World War II. Phillips, Rockwood, Watkins, and Freeman were four of many WPI alumni who contributed significantly to fire protection. Creation of a formal fire protection engineering degree program thus launched a tradition of the Institute’s deep involvement in the field. Many individuals promoted the concept of an FPE program at WPI and were instrumental in the success of this innovative program. Robert Fitzgerald (Class of 1953) and David Lucht stand out as individuals who played a special role in the evolution of this program. Fitzgerald, at the time a Professor of Civil Engineering at WPI, became interested in fire protection through his studies of building codes. With time, he and other faculty members became strong proponents of the establishment of a formal FPE degree program at WPI. Soon, WPI recruited Lucht, then Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Fire Administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce, to become the first head of the FPE degree program and director of the newly created Center for Fire Safety Studies. And the rest, as they say, is history. FPE at WPI embodies the university’s distinctive educational philosophy. WPI has been true to the spirit of combining Lehr und Kunst—Theory and Practice—since the day of its founding as one of the nation’s earliest technological universities. WPI rededicated itself to these principles in 1970 with the implementation of the groundbreaking WPI Plan, in which the academic experience of all students includes intensive application of science and technology to solving real-world problems. And no real-world problem touches more lives than the destruction caused by fire. The program’s current mission statement is clear: “Fire Protection Engineering at WPI strives to be a thriving and well respected engineering and policy program with an important presence in fire safety. We are dedicated to

228

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

teaching, scholarship, and multidisciplinary collaboration in transforming fire protection engineering and advancing fire-safety policy.”

12.4 GLOBAL PATHWAYS TO FIRE-SAFETY LEADERSHIP FPE at WPI is a thriving field of study because the program blends inspired, world-renowned teaching, exceptional scholarship, and research unparalleled in engineering education. We are a melting pot of academic disciplines with real-world implications, and a vibrant body of scholarship on the international scale. Since the department focuses on a major challenge facing all of society rather than on a specific technical area, our team comprises degree candidates and a faculty from diverse fields of engineering, science, and beyond. Our graduates come into the program with a wide variety of undergraduate degrees, including mechanical, civil, chemical, electrical, environmental, and robotic engineering, along with backgrounds in physics, chemistry, math, computer science, architecture, the social sciences, and others. Our multinational graduates, coming to WPI from more than 40 nations to date, often return to their homelands, where they assume high-level leadership positions in the development of fire-safety design, practice, codes, and standards. Others help establish FPE programs at educational institutions around the world. The WPI educational system serves as a model for future graduate programs across the globe and across many cultures. In effect, using the knowledge acquired at WPI enables FPE practitioners to solve important global problems by working as members of international teams of individuals and by bringing their diverse skills and experience to bear on the problem. Protecting the world from the ever-increasing potential of loss from fire means facing this challenge by applying a mix of disciplines—from engineering and mathematics, to management, psychology, and public policy. Training professionals who will lead the world to fire safety involves instilling in them a working knowledge of the regulatory system and how to utilize it to effect change and achieve the level of fire safety needed around the world. Our FPE students and faculty are firmly grounded in a variety of disciplines. They work in teams to apply cutting-edge research tools to address the important challenges of the twenty-first century. The threats of terrorist attacks, safe use of new composite materials, and the impact of natural disasters are just some of the areas that today’s FPE students are learning to address. Traditionally, lessons learned from large fire losses have informed future measures employed to protect against the risk and destructive consequences of fire. Knowledge gained in this process has resulted in the development of the exceedingly complex body of construction codes and standards meant to

GLOBAL PATHWAYS TO FIRE-SAFETY LEADERSHIP

229

maximize fire safety and minimize the risk. With magnitude and size of the problem, however, come expense and the potential for confusion in the implementation of these measures. In fact, much of the financial cost of fire containment is the expense of meeting the national fire codes. In the course of their training, WPI FPE graduates perform fire experimentation and research. They carry out risk analyses of major industrial facilities and consult with architects on buildings ranging from high-rise structures to hospitals, hotels, and sports stadiums. They engineer safe buildings, ships, trains, and other facilities using the latest principles of performance-based design. Fire protection engineers design egress systems based on human behavior and protective components such as fire sprinkler and alarm systems, and smoke control systems. They investigate fires and explosions, and assure safety in diverse applications such as the NASA space program and U.S. military bases worldwide. And their work influences fire regulations around the world. In short, our graduates significantly improve the safety and the quality of countless lives around the globe. The demand for fire protection engineers continues to swell, providing nearly unlimited career opportunities for WPI FPE graduates. Good-paying jobs abound in business, government, and industry, including consulting engineering firms, the petrochemical industry, the entertainment industry, insurance companies, federal agencies, health-care facilities, code-enforcement agencies, and many other areas. The number of career opportunities consistently exceeds the number of engineers available to fill them. In fact, the unemployment rate of WPI FPE grads today is little more than 0%, a far cry from the employment situation in many professions. Our graduates can be found working as consultants, at fire protection equipment manufacturers, in government, the insurance industry, research laboratories, professional societies, fire departments, municipalities, and many other organizations. Their jobs have taken them from the South Pole, to Alaskan pipelines, to Disney World, and beyond. In short, Fire Protection Engineers at WPI are leading a global movement to design a safer planet. Due to society’s interest in FPE, attention from allied professions is also growing significantly. For example, advances in smart buildings and sustainability create opportunities and challenges for fire-safety technology. Evolving materials technology, such as composites and nanotechnology, creates the need to understand the threats, risks, vulnerabilities, and opportunities associated with fire. As mentioned above, fire costs the U.S. economy nearly $350 billion annually. Much of this amount reflects the cost of meeting national fire codes for building construction. Studies in fire protection engineering and policy are needed in order to identify ways to provide safety at a more reasonable

230

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

cost. Meanwhile, fire protection codes and regulations are becoming more and more performance-oriented. Consequently, industry and government will need FPEs that can perform risk-informed designs complete with adequate consideration of societal costs and benefits.

12.5 THE WPI APPROACH TO FPE EDUCATION Unique is a term bandied about far too liberally in higher education. WPI’s approach to FPE education, research, and collaboration, however, fulfills this description as few other universities can. In 1979, WPI launched its master’s degree in fire protection engineering, the first of its kind in the United States. Today we offer the nation’s only PhD degree in FPE. Working hand in hand with the university’s distinguished and internationally renowned faculty, our doctoral candidates conduct vital research on the most important challenges facing the profession, leading to the creation and dissemination of groundbreaking FPE knowledge and practice throughout the world. Teaching in FPE seamlessly combines on-campus and advanced distance learning network (ADLN) instruction. Our five-year program earns graduates a bachelor’s degree in a traditional engineering discipline, such as mechanical, electrical, civil, chemical, or environmental engineering, as well as a master’s degree in FPE. And our unique distance learning program can lead students to a master’s degree or a fire protection engineering graduate certificate. We believe that students should understand how to apply knowledge—not just how to cite facts and theories. Our undergraduate and graduate students emerge ready to take on some of the most difficult challenges in FPE. More importantly, they understand how their work can truly have a positive impact on society and on the improvement of people’s lives. Whether helping design tall buildings or testing fire suppression chemicals, FPE graduates emerge from the WPI experience exceptionally well equipped with the theoretical and practical skills they need to make an increasingly crowded world less volatile and combustible. An opportunity to solve important problems of global scale attracts many of the brightest and most dedicated and compassionate people. The application of scientific and engineering principles to protect people and their environment from destructive fire is a specialty that is defined as part of the larger engineering discipline by the Society of Fire Protection Engineering (SPFE) Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering [4]. In addition, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) recognizes the discipline through a specialty Professional Engineer (PE) examination and designation. Fire protection engineering goes beyond saving lives and property. Engineered fire protection has a net positive impact on two distinct fields: esthetics

THE WPI APPROACH TO FPE EDUCATION

231

and architectural design, and U.S. competitiveness. To understand these impacts, FPE students at WPI look carefully at the history of fire protection and distinguish between fire protection and fire protection engineering. Our curriculum enables students to appreciate the intersection of design and architecture. Many new buildings embody both function and form on a grand scale, and protecting them from fire within the limitations of their function and form becomes ever more challenging. 12.5.1 Synchronous Learning Practicing professionals and students from nearby and from around the world have uncommon educational opportunities in WPI’s FPE program. Our Synchronous Learning ADLN brings the much needed fire protection solutions to developed and developing nations, while simultaneously enriching the educational experience for on-campus and local students.

232

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

Through a single class, with the aid of a shared online discussion forum, students learn through collaborative interaction with instructors and with each other. Some may be seated in classrooms on the WPI campus; some may be elsewhere in New England or spread across the United Sates; and some are in other countries. In all cases the ADLN format enriches the student’s experience. Students often work in teams, solving important problems. These teams cross cultures, time zones, ages, and backgrounds. ADLN courses at other schools are distinct from on-campus courses. At WPI, teams of student working professionals bring unique real-world problems, perspectives, and skills to the class, and they explore various approaches to fire safety and national codes. Global bonds form that can long outlive the “classroom” experience. Our Synchronous Learning program has gathered students from nations as diverse as China, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Germany, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Spain, England, Malaysia, Chile, Saudi Arabia, and many others. From the early days of the WPI’s FPE program, governments around the world have recognized the benefit of sending their top engineers to the United States, either physically or via ADLN, to learn from our and their fellow students’ experience and to return to their countries ready and qualified to establish their own academic programs, advance their fire codes, and generally enrich their fire-safety practices. WPI’s FPE Synchronous Learning network is leading the world in “training the trainers.” 12.5.2 Graduate Industrial Internship Program WPI’s unique graduate internship program is available to FPE students, enabling them to earn income and gain important practical experience.

FPE AT WPI: THE INTERSECTION OF THEORY AND APPLICATION

233

A cooperative education program is also available for undergraduate students. This program helps students earn an MS degree in FPE through a combination of practical internship experiences and classroom activities. Approximately 80% of FPE students complete an internship. This approach has proven to be a win–win–win opportunity for students, for employers in a host of businesses and government agencies, and for WPI itself. Participants can start working and earning money after just one semester of study. Both the employer and the student get to “try (each other) before they buy.” Students can maintain their student-based health insurance coverage while in the program, and their student loan repayment obligations do not kick in until after they complete the program. As for WPI, student internships play an important role in making the FPE program so effective. Internships enable the faculty to maintain close ties with the businesses that hire our graduates and help shape the FPE program and its course content. WPI coordinates the program, identifying the needs of employers and furnishing them with the resumes of talented young men and women. After the initial contact, discussions are held directly between students and employers. The internship has no geographical restrictions and scheduling can be flexible. The student and his/her sponsor work together to formulate specific work-study schedules.

12.6 FPE AT WPI: THE INTERSECTION OF THEORY AND APPLICATION The FPE program offers entry points for a wide range of students, from those graduating high school or college, to seasoned professionals with many years of practical experience.

12.6.1 For High School Graduates WPI offers a special five-year program option for high school graduates to save them time and money in preparing for a career in fire protection engineering. WPI graduates enter the FPE job market with two degrees—a BS in one of the traditional engineering disciplines, such as mechanical, civil, chemical, electrical, or other engineering. The other degree is the MS in FPE. This combination of an accredited BS degree in a traditional engineering fields and the MS in FPE gives WPI graduates exceptional versatility in the job market. Each year the number of FPE jobs available far exceeds the number of FPE graduates, giving our students excellent career choices and highly competitive salary offers.

234

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

12.6.2 For College Students College students already enrolled in undergraduate engineering, science, or engineering technology programs can complete their degrees at their home institutions and apply for graduate study in FPE at WPI. Alternatively, students already enrolled at other universities can transfer and finish the BS degree as well as the FPE master’s degree at WPI. We encourage these students to consult with us for help in selecting courses at other schools in order to best prepare them for the graduate WPI program. 12.6.3 For College Graduates Many of our FPE students pursue a graduate FPE degree after earning a BS degree in engineering, science, or engineering technology. These students can complete a master’s degree in FPE in as little as 12 months. Students who already have a master’s degree in another field of engineering or science may enroll in the doctoral program or pursue a second master’s degree. With departmental approval, the student can transfer up to nine semester hours of appropriate graduate course work from another university. 12.6.4 Master of Science The MS FPE program is a high-level graduate program in fire protection engineering and policy that is structured to be equally effective for full-time on-campus study or part-time distance learning. The program is designed to refine critical thinking skills necessary for developing industry leaders. The MS program can be tailored flexibly to individual students’ career goals, whether the student is oriented toward engineering practice or theory and research. The master’s degree requires 30 semester hours of credit, and can be completed with or without a thesis. Notably, WPI’s Synchronous Learning program enables MS students to arrange a highly flexible class schedule that seamlessly integrates on-campus and ADLN instruction. For example, a student who starts out with ADLN could decide to come to campus and simply continue on, even in the middle of the course. Likewise, a person who begins his/her studies on-campus can accept a job offer and transfer into our ADLN program without the need to stop taking courses abruptly. 12.6.5 Doctor of Philosophy WPI created the PhD in fire FPE in 1991. The doctoral degree requires 60 semester hours of credit beyond the master’s degree, including at least 30 h

FPE TEXTBOOKS AND RESOURCES

235

of dissertation research. The master’s degree can be in fire protection engineering or other traditional disciplines.

12.6.6 Corporate and Professional Education Corporate and professional education (CPE) enhances and supports the MS program in FPE by increasing opportunities for practicing engineers to gain access to graduate-level courses. CPE also provides an avenue for allied professionals to enhance their fire safety, engineering, and policy knowledge through a multitude of educational and outreach activities. Graduate Certificate in Fire Protection Engineering: This certificate recognizes satisfactory completion of four thematically related fire protection engineering courses. These credits may be subsequently applied toward a master’s degree, if the student is formally admitted to the MS program at a later date. Advanced Certificate in Fire Protection Engineering: Designed for students already holding a master’s degree, this certificate recognizes satisfactory completion of five thematically related fire protection engineering courses. These credits may be applied toward a subsequent master’s or doctoral degree, if the student is formally admitted to graduate study at a later time. 12.7 FPE TEXTBOOKS AND RESOURCES In the late 1970s, when the FPE became an academic department at WPI, very few textbooks on the subject existed anywhere in the world. Since then, members of the FPE faculty at WPI have contributed mightily to the body of fire protection literature to support this new problem-centric discipline. For example, seminal volumes in the field include Introduction to Performance-based Fire Safety Engineering, coauthored by Professors Meacham and Richard L.P. Custer (retired); and Industrial Fire Protection Engineering, by Professor Zalosh [5]. Professor Puchovsky recently coauthored Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook [6] and cowrote and coedited Fire Pump Handbook [7]. Professors Notarianni, Meacham, and Puchovsky all have authored chapters in the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering [4]. It is also relevant to mention that Professor Dougal Drysdale of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, wrote his seminal book, Fire Dynamics [8], while on sabbatical at WPI in the 1980s, testing out each chapter as he taught his WPI students.

236

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

12.8 RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP The FPE faculty enjoys hard-earned international recognition in a wide range of research and practical specialties. We are currently a dedicated faculty of six with backgrounds in chemical, electrical, mechanical, civil, and aerospace engineering and physics. Two members of the faculty also hold advanced degrees in public policy and risk management. Specific FPE research areas at WPI include the following: The Fire Modeling Laboratory specializes in computer applications to fire protection engineering and research. Research activities include computational fluid dynamics modeling of building and vehicle fires, and flame spread model development. The laboratory is lead by Professor Nicholas Dembsey, who is a world leader in the study of fire dynamics and the application of fire models. Members of the laboratory are developing new techniques and a guidance document for practicing engineers to measure fire properties of materials. This work will enable engineers to more accurately predict fire behavior. Other projects focus on materials issues that will enable practicing engineers to more accurately foretell how water and materials interact in fire suppression, and how flames spread on different materials. This work will lead to the development of more effective and efficient designs in the built environment and serve as a basis for better regulatory policy. The result will be greater life safety and property protection in today’s cost-conscious world. Professor Albert Simeoni focuses on Understanding and Forecasting Wildfires. The research is geared toward understanding, modeling, and simulating wildfires, with special attention to combustion and heat and mass transfers. The applied aspects of these studies aim at developing scientific tools useful for fighting wildfires and for improving land management. He and his students develop experimental and analytical techniques to better understand fire dynamics and enable forecasting of fire behavior under diverse conditions. As the world’s urban/wild land interface becomes more problematic with population growth, studies of this kind become increasingly urgent. Members of the Combustion Laboratory, under the direction of Professor Ali Rangwala, study fundamental combustion properties as they relate to fire safety. Current research projects focus on Combustion and Explosion Protection, including the self-heating effects of coal dust, flammable properties of gasoline canisters, cross-correlation velocimetry, and the laminar burning velocity of flammable dusts. Current safety standards do not account for the full range of combustibility of materials found in industrial settings, nor do they provide an accurate measurement of hazardous dust accumulation within the environment. Thus, the Laboratory studies the complex problem of

RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP

237

combustibility and how to better predict fire and explosion hazards. Among the potentially life-saving projects under development are novel methods and techniques for identifying the presence, velocity, and flow direction of smoke. Tunnels, tall buildings, and underground transit systems will be safer once this new technology is deployed. Other projects include the development of benchmark tests to better understand the physics of ignition and deflagration in premixed dust–air combination. 12.8.1 Regulatory Policy, Risk, and Engineering Framework Historically, building regulations have been developed in response to catastrophic events. Today there is more focus on gaining fundamental knowledge about the performance of buildings and their occupants under a wide range of events, and developing regulations that meet societal expectations for building safety and performance, resulting in better allocation of resources based on critical needs. The research of Professor Brian J. Meacham focuses on the development of new approaches for enhancing public safety. This work has influenced decision makers in charge of developing building regulations in the United States and abroad and requires close collaboration with government agencies responsible for developing regulatory policy. Meacham is the author of numerous texts and is an internationally recognized expert on risk-informed, performance-based design and regulation. Today, firefighters increasingly serve as first responders for emergency medical calls, civil emergencies, terrorist threats, and hazardous materials incidents. Consequently, Firefighter Safety and Policy is increasing of concern. A research team under the direction of Professor Kathy A. Notarianni is conducting a multiyear study to determine the best procedural standards and resource allocation to significantly reduce loss of life and property for firefighters and civilians. The team is working with more than 400 fire departments, compiling detailed demographics of each, along with a database of hundreds of thousands of fire department deployments and outcomes, which will be analyzed statistically. The study is being undertaken in concert with the International Association of Fire Fighters and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Another team at WPI, consisting of faculty and students from the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, the Biomedical Engineering Department, and the Fire Protection Engineering Department, is developing the final component of an integrated monitoring system designed to reduce firefighter deaths and injuries. The system precisely locates and tracks firefighters inside buildings in three dimensions. It continuously monitors their vital signs to warn incident commanders when they are at risk of suffering stress-related

238

HOLISTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION: FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

heart attacks, and takes floor-to-ceiling temperature readings inside buildings to provide an early warning of impending flashover—an event that kills humans instantaneously [9]. In addition to research in the focus areas listed above, FPE students have the opportunity to conduct both course based and independent research in the state-of-the-art Fire Science Laboratory, which supports experimentation in fire dynamics, combustion/explosion phenomena, detection, and fire and explosion suppression. The fire propagation apparatus, cone calorimeter, infrared imaging system, phase Doppler particle analyzer, and room calorimeter are also available, with associated gas analysis and data acquisition systems. The wet lab area supports water-based fire suppression and demonstration projects. Serving as both a teaching and a research facility, the lab accommodates undergraduate projects as well as graduate students’ research in FPE, mechanical engineering, and related disciplines. The department has a long-standing history of bringing in outside experts and practitioners from industry to work with students. The goal is to help students recognize the value they can bring to their current and future employers, customers, and clients through new or improved solutions to fire-safety problems, through developing new products, services, or design approaches, and through influencing regulatory policy. Today Milosh Puchovsky, Professor of Practice, fills this vital role. Professor Puchovsky is a long-standing contributor to WPI’s research and engineering theory as well as to a broader practice- and policy-oriented curriculum. He brings a realworld perspective earned over 20 years of industry experience. This experience enables him to incorporate assignments similar to those that a practicing fire protection engineer would take on in real life.

12.9 CONCLUSION As the world becomes more crowded and complex, the risk of death and destruction from fire increases. WPI’s Fire Protection Engineering Department is leading the world in finding more successful, cost-effective tools and techniques for avoiding fiery disasters before they occur. Since its inception in 1979, WPI has graduated over 400 students in FPE. These exceptionally well-educated graduates go on to careers that save lives and protect property every day around the world. FPE is a superb example of how WPI prepares students to tackle not only the interesting challenges of engineering and science, but also some of the most urgent. The result of such efforts is an academic curriculum that blends theory and practice in an exciting, real-world context that touches the lives of billions of people globally.

REFERENCES

239

Prior to 1979, few universities offered programs in FPE. Consequently, virtually no FPE textbooks or curricula existed before then. One of our major contributions to the field has been publication of textbooks in FPE that are widely acknowledged as the premier volumes of this kind. And the WPI FPE curriculum can serve as a model for academic programs around the world. We are a truly multidisciplinary assembly of people. Both the FPE faculty and our student body comprise individuals from many nations worldwide with academic backgrounds in virtually every field of engineering, science, and beyond. We are convinced that, by attracting the best and the brightest geographically and academically, we have created an academic environment representative of the diverse perspectives vital to fire protection engineering. We are working diligently every day to continue to build a department in which multidisciplinary innovation, excellence, and collaboration have been our calling card for more than 30 years. And we fully anticipate that in the coming years our students, our faculty, and our research partners will continue to build on this remarkable heritage. Fire protection engineering at WPI is truly making the world safer.

REFERENCES 1. J.R. Hall, “The Total Cost of Fire in the United States.” National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division, March 2010. Available: http:// www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/totalcostsum.pdf. 2. M. Ahrens, “Smoke Alarms in U.S. Home Fires.” National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division, Sept 2009. Available: http:// www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.SmokeAlarms.pdf 3. “Natural Hazards—A National Threat,” Fact Sheet 2007-3009. U.S. Geological Survey, Feb 2007. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3009/2007-3009.pdf. 4. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 2002. 5. R.G. Zalosh, Industrial Fire Protection Engineering. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2003. 6. C. Dubay and M. T. Puchovsky (eds.), Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook, 9th edn. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 2002. 7. K.E. Isman and M.T. Puchovsky (eds.), Fire Pump Handbook. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1998. 8. D. Drysdale, An Introduction to Fire Dynamics, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 1999. 9. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “A High Tech, High Stakes Game of Hide and Seek.” News Releases 2010–2011. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/news/20101/ locationworkshop.html

PART III

OUTCOMES AND IMPLICATIONS

CHAPTER 13

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION: LESSONS LEARNED JOHN ORR

13.1 INTRODUCTION As the race to land an American on the moon was reaching its climax at the end of the 1960s, a group of faculty at WPI concluded that radical change was needed in the school’s approach to education. They reported There is a growing feeling throughout the nation that many science and engineering educators have become so concerned with a narrow form of professionalism that they fail to react adequately to disturbing signs around them. For over a decade we have seen a loss of interest in engineering on the part of high school students; the disenchantment of students enrolled in engineering programs is notorious; and we have heard much about the importance of relating science and engineering to the needs of people. Many papers have been presented by national leaders, which deplore the “lack of concern” on the part of the specialists and cite repeatedly the need for the humanist-professional. The need for some basic changes in the approach to the education of scientists, engineers, and those who would work with them has been widely recognized [1].

Less than a year later, on May 10, 1970, the “WPI Plan” was brought to a vote of the WPI faculty. The results were 92 in favor, 46 opposed, and 3 abstaining. With that strong, but far from unanimous endorsement, WPI began to implement one of the more fundamental and far-reaching changes in American higher education. Previous chapters have described important components of that system that resulted, but taken individually they do not Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

243

244

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

adequately portray the scale of the transformation. The educational philosophy of the Planning Committee is summed up in this sentence from the Goal of WPI that the committee drafted, “The WPI student, from the beginning of his undergraduate education, should demonstrate that he can learn on his own, that he can translate his learning into worthwhile action, and that he is thoroughly aware of the interrelationships among basic knowledge, technological advance, and human need” [1]. That sentence, with appropriate revisions to include both genders, continues to guide WPI’s academic programs. This rather simple statement led to the following revolutionary academic structure: . . . . .

No required courses. A nontraditional grading system with no recorded failing grade, except in very limited circumstances. Four 7-week terms, rather than two semesters, in each academic year. Three major projects as degree requirements. Passing of a multi-day oral/written examination in the student’s major area as a graduation requirement.

The current implementation of this plan is described in Chapter 4. As WPI passes its 40th year with “the WPI Plan” it is appropriate to examine what has worked well, what has been revised, and what has required replacement. Also, it is important to assess on an overall basis, the success of this approach to engineering education. After four decades of experience we can state with confidence, and with substantial supporting evidence, that the WPI Plan represents an . . . . .

implementable, sustainable, engaging, flexible, and effective

approach to the delivery of undergraduate engineering education. Each of these aspects is important in any educational system, and this chapter will elaborate on each of them in WPI’s context. This chapter takes a broad view of WPI’s approach to engineering education as it has been implemented for the past 40 years. Quite a few lessons have been learned from that experience, and they are highlighted throughout the chapter. To give a preview of the primary lesson learned: Major change is not easy, but it is possible!

ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN’S EFFECTIVENESS

245

13.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN’S EFFECTIVENESS 13.2.1 Are the Educational Goals Being Accomplished? Undoubtedly the most common question regarding educational change is, “Does it work?” A related question is, “Does it work better than the conventional educational approach that it replaces? These questions have two connotations: First, does the educational system “work” to enroll students who successfully proceed through the system with reasonably low attrition to graduation, and who are taught by faculty who competently implement the desired educational program, at a supportable cost? The second connotation is more succinct: Are the educational goals achieved and do those goals lead to the desired post-graduation accomplishments? WPI’s admissions statistics, faculty recruitment and retention, graduate placement, and financial results over the past 40 years demonstrate that indeed the Plan represents a workable approach to engineering education. A more detailed investigation is needed regarding the educational accomplishments of the Plan. Students and faculty may enjoy the experiences of the program, but a more substantive measure is needed. Measuring educational outcomes with any degree of precision in the postsecondary educational environment is quite difficult. For WPI’s program a wide variety of types of evaluations have been performed: .

. . . . .

Qualitative assessment of the overall educational program by external reviewers as in the NSF report, “Restructuring Undergraduate Science Education, a Summative Assessment by the NSF-WPI Project Advisory Committee [2].” Comparison with peer institutions as in the NSF-sponsored report, “The Impact of the WPI Plan on its Students and Graduates [3].” External reviews of the Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP) program. Accreditation reviews by ABET, AACSB, and NEASC. Student and alumni surveys, both internally conducted and conducted by third parties, including the NSSE, EBI, and Noel Levitz surveys. Student focus groups.

In addition, objective data such as job placement results and graduate school admissions bear witness to an educational program’s success compared to that of other institutions graduating students with similar backgrounds and potentials. This section will summarize the major overall assessment activities, with particular emphasis on evaluations of the Interactive Qualifying Project that is arguably the WPI Plan’s most distinctive aspect.

246

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

13.2.2 External Peer Reviews of the Overall Undergraduate Program 13.2.2.1 National Science Foundation Peer review of the WPI Plan began with NSF support first awarded in 1972 in the amount of $733,000, and later augmented to a total of $1.2 M (equivalent to about $6.4 M inflation adjusted to 2009). Between 1972 and 1975 the NSF-WPI Advisory Panel visited campus at least twice per year, and issued their final report in July 1975 [2]. The panel members were . . . . . . .

Lee Harrisberger, Dean of Science and Engineering, University of Texas of the Permian Basin. Dr. Bruce Mazlish, Head of the Department of Humanities, MIT. Dr. George Pake, VP, Xerox. Dr. Kenneth Picha, Dean of Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Dr. Eugene Reed, Executive Director, Bell Laboratories. Dr. David Riesman, Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences, Harvard. Dr. John Winnery, Prof. of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

Each of these panel members took distinct, and sometimes rather personal, approaches to their advice and conclusions. Those aspects of the report, which can be of use to other institutions are highlighted here. With respect to the implementation at WPI of this ground-breaking and ambitious approach to undergraduate education by an institution with limited resources, the clear conclusion of the panel was that the implementation was exceedingly successful, demonstrating that such large projects can succeed. As Dr. Harrisberger said, “It has met its objectives for the 3-year period exceedingly well. Problems of implementation were met and solved with very little compromise of objectives. He did caution, “The University has not yet had an opportunity to institutionalize the program and develop the resources to accommodate its costs and demands. It’s like buying a family a pet elephant and not providing assistance for it to provide the ton of hay a day it takes to keep it.” In the 24 years since that was written, the Plan has been fully institutionalized and resources have been found to sustain it. This has not been easy, but the clear success of the Plan made evident the value of finding the needed resources. That initial success only happened because, in Dr. Harrisberger’s words, “It proves essentially that a well-conceived plan with good management and generous outside support can be made successfully operational. The NSF has gotten its monies’ worth.”

ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN’S EFFECTIVENESS

247

In summary, Dr. Harrisberger stated, “The program is an excellent new instructional system, a commendable addition to engineering education, and a most worthy investment and contribution by NSF.” However, the panel was pessimistic about the ability to export the WPI Plan to another institution. Dr. Harrisberger was emphatic, “. . . it is not an exportable package and nothing can be proved that the PLAN could survive nor even get started on another campus.” This is not as gloomy a statement as it might at first appear. As was discussed earlier, the key to success of any major change at an institution is that it grows out of vision and commitment developed at that institution. The success of the WPI Plan can inspire the expectation of success elsewhere, and the novel elements of the Plan should stimulate similarly novel thinking within the context of the other institution. On the other hand, members of the panel were more optimistic that some individual aspects of the Plan could be successfully implemented elsewhere. In the words of Dr. Picha, “It is likely, however, that the concept of working on real problems, both technical and social, can be exported. . . . It is hoped that industry and government agencies will recognize the educational value of working with our Nation’s engineering schools and will be willing to make the manpower investment as well as financial investment to continue to encourage these efforts.” The panelists’ conclusions with respect to the question of how well the WPI Plan was operating were similarly clear: By 1975 the panel concluded that most all aspects of the Plan were operating well, and that many were performing exceptionally well. On the important question of the educational results of the WPI Plan, the panelists were, not surprisingly less emphatic. Their report contains no negative conclusions, and leads the reader to conclude that the Plan education is at least on par with conventional education. But is it better? On that point, Dr. Reed concludes, “Whether the Plan offers engineering education superior to the traditional approach is not clear. . . . A definitive comparison between the two educational schemes will take years to achieve and may indeed be of interest to the NSF and the educational community at large.” 13.2.2.2 Cohen Report During the period of 1972 through 1978, a rather comprehensive set of studies of the “Impact of the WPI Plan on its Students and Graduates” was carried out by Karen Cohen with support from the National Science Foundation [3]. Data for the study were derived from student interviews, test scores, academic records, various student surveys, telephone surveys of alumni and their supervisors. Some of these data were collected for WPI students and alumni, and for students and alumni at two universities that were comparable except for the educational program (conventional vs. the WPI Plan). The other two universities were Clarkson and

248

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

Stevens; more extensive data were collected for Clarkson. The salient findings in the comparison study of WPI with Clarkson noted the following differences (a comparable study was not conducted with Stevens graduates): . . . . .

WPI graduates are working in larger companies. WPI graduates are more likely to be in jobs that are nontraditional for their majors. WPI graduates are rated as slightly more effective communicators. WPI graduates are slightly more likely to pursue additional education. WPI graduates are ranked slightly better in “performance so far” by their supervisors.

These results only tracked students 2 years after graduation and the sample size was relatively small: 100 WPI graduates and 50 Clarkson graduates. 13.2.2.3 External Surveys In contrast to the above that were specially commissioned reviews, WPI has also participated in a large number of external surveys intended to measure and compare various aspects of the student academic experience across institutions. In particular, WPI has regularly taken part in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) since 2001, the second year of the survey. The overall purpose of the NSSE surveys is to determine how college students spend their time, and in particular, how “engaged” they are in their learning using a variety of measures such as class participation and time spent on academic work outside of class. Over 1300 colleges and universities have taken part in this study, providing substantial comparative data. WPI’s students report favorable results compared to peer institutions in most categories. For example, WPI students reported spending more time preparing for class than any other reporting school [4]. While the NSSE survey addresses all undergraduate majors, other studies are focused purely on engineering students. A continuing, commercial survey is provided by EBI Incorporated, and relates specifically to assessment of engineering student accomplishment of the learning outcomes defined for accreditation by ABET, the organization that accredits engineering and computer science programs. Here again, WPI students report results that typically surpass those of peer schools. In addition to these continuing studies that provide useful longitudinal as well as comparative data, WPI takes part in one-time studies intended to address specific issues. A recent example is the PACE (Program to Address the Climate in Engineering) study conducted by the University of Washington [5]. This was an in-depth study that included both online and in-person interviews with students. The primary purpose of the study was to determine and quantify

ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN’S EFFECTIVENESS

249

issues that affect student persistence to completion of engineering degrees, with topics ranging from the amount of homework, to relations with fellow students, to faculty teaching approaches. Many of the aspects measured relate directly to WPI’s educational philosophy, such as the encouragement of creative thinking, the degree of comfort in meeting with professors, group projects, and the degree to which students help each other. Among the 21 schools participating WPI ranked within the top two or three schools in many of the relevant measures, and above the mean in almost all cases [5]. 13.2.3 Assessment of the Interactive Qualifying Project Many universities have incorporated some aspects of service learning, and the IQP is one approach to this important area. This distinctive aspect of the WPI Plan is described in Section 13.3. Particularly distinguishing characteristics of the IQP are the degree to which the experience is integrated into the overall WPI curriculum and educational philosophy, the breadth of faculty engagement across all academic disciplines, the fact that regular WPI faculty are in residence with the students, and the attention given to the academic aspects and to specific learning outcomes, overseen by the faculty. As will be illustrated below, many IQPs produce positive societal impacts, in common with the broad range of “service learning” activities. While these benefits are certainly desirable, they are not the fundamental reason that the IQP is conducted. The faculty have formally adopted a rather broad and ambitious set of learning outcomes for the IQP: . . .

. . . . . .

Demonstrate an understanding of the project’s technical, social, and humanistic context. Define clear, achievable goals and objectives for the project. Critically identify, utilize, and properly cite information sources, and integrate information from multiple sources to identify appropriate approaches to addressing the project goals. Select and implement a sound approach to solving an interdisciplinary problem. Analyze and synthesize results from social, ethical, humanistic, technical, or other perspectives, as appropriate. Maintain effective working relationships within the project team and with the project advisor(s), recognizing and resolving problems that may arise. Demonstrate the ability to write clearly, critically, and persuasively. Demonstrate strong oral communication skills, using appropriate, effective visual aids. Demonstrate an awareness of the ethical dimensions of their project work.

250

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

Several methods of evaluation have been employed to determine the degree to which these outcomes are being achieved. 13.2.3.1 Internal IQP Evaluations Comprehensive internal reviews of IQP reports (both on-campus and off-campus projects) are regularly conducted by the Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division [6]. These reviews began in 1989, and have been conducted every 3 years since that time. Results have been quite consistent, and the findings have stimulated several improvements in the IQP processes and outcomes. In particular, improvements in advising have resulted in significantly more projects that feature proper literature reviews, conscious selection of methods, and appropriate analysis. The IQP review process involves a team of specially trained (and paid) faculty reviewers who are first calibrated on the aspects to be reviewed using a common set of past project reports. Then the completed project reports of the previous year (200þ) are randomly assigned to the reviewer pool. Each reviewer completes the survey instrument after reading each report, averaging approximately 100 pages in length. A representative selection of the aspects reviewed is presented in Table 13.1, with scores for projects conducted on campus distinguished from those at the global centers. A 5-point scale is used, where 1 is “poor,” 3 is “acceptable,” and 5 is “excellent.” Note that these scores are based on the evidence presented in the written report. There could be other educational outcomes for which the report presents little or no evidence. The substantial difference in the on-campus and global scores is immediately apparent. Most of the on-campus scores rank as borderline acceptable, while the off-campus scores generally rank as good or better. The one area where both scores are low is the aspect of professional and ethical responsibility. It should be noted for all these results that it is the evidence presented

TABLE 13.1 IQP Attribute Ratings, Five Point Scale Project Attribute Clearly defined objectives Relevant literature consulted and synthesized Appropriate methodologies employed Appropriate and complete analysis Supported conclusions Writing and presentation quality Multidisciplinary team and topic Evidence of ability to engage in lifelong learning Understanding of the societal impact Knowledge of contemporary issues Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

On-Campus

Global

3.4 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.5 3.1 2.2

4.3 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.3 3.7 2.8

ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN’S EFFECTIVENESS

251

by the report that is being evaluated, rather than a direct measure of student knowledge or understanding. Hence this low rank should not be interpreted to mean that the students demonstrated a lack of understanding of ethical issues. It does mean that the project reports did not contain evidence to demonstrate this understanding. Since ethics is quite important, this aspect bears further investigation. The reasons for the gap between the on-campus and global projects are not completely understood, but our sense is that major components include student motivation (the global program requires a competitive student application process) and the high level of organization and attention focused on the global projects themselves, as well as the involvement of outside agencies in these projects. Perhaps most important, the off-campus residential projects are preceded by an intensive preparation course addressing topics ranging from the local culture to proper methods of social science research. 13.2.3.2 Case Studies Another appropriate way to evaluate the effectiveness of these projects is via case studies. Two prototypical projects have been evaluated in depth [7]. The first involved the design and implementation of a web site for a social service program in the city of Worcester. This program runs a shelter for homeless persons who are also struggling with drug and/or alcohol addiction and operates under the acronym “PIP shelter.” Originally PIP stood for “Public Inebriate Program,” but now is said to represent “People in Peril”. The technical (web development) part of this project was critical to its completion, but the societal aspects occupied considerably more of the students’ attention. One student on the four person team commented, “Over the course of the interviews we noticed a general dislike of the PIP shelter and its location; it seemed as though many people blamed the dismal state of PIP’s neighborhood solely on the shelter, and this is largely unjustified. This caused us to design a site with a focus on rehabilitation and hope, complete with uplifting images and an overall positive impression.” A very different aspect of the goals of the IQP is illustrated by a student comment that “I learned how to manage a large project. We used actual project management techniques and implemented them into our project. We had timelines, guidelines for communication, a complete blueprint/project plan, and a great sense of scope.” Essentially all IQP’s are performed in teams, generally with two to four student members, and it is not uncommon for students to view the necessary teamwork as one of the most difficult aspects of the experience. In this case, that aspect proceeded smoothly, and one of the team summarized, “The report writing, research, teamwork, and time management skills would be useful in just about any career so they are very valuable.” The more technical aspects of the project were also significant, as indicated by this comment, “We all sat

252

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

down and made it a point to learn ASP (Active Server Pages, a Microsoft web software product) inside and out. This has shown me that nothing is out of reach, and if I need to learn a new software package or anything throughout my career, that I can do it.” Finally, the fact that the project ended with a product (a web site in this case) is seen by the students as quite important. One student commented, “I liked that the project provided a physical example of our efforts and experiences.” The second case study was of a project conducted in the informal settlements around Windhoek, Namibia. The general topic was energy efficiency, and the students worked to develop means for the shack dwellers to keep their homes more comfortable in both hot and cold conditions. The students experienced the same range of activities as in the previous case study, with an even stronger human dimension. In the words of one student, “Working with a community in a developing nation is one of the most fulfilling experiences emotionally, professionally, and spiritually. I worked hard on my project not for the grade but because I believed that my hard work would help out people that much more.” The authors conclude that the IQP teaches students to frame unscripted realworld problems and to make appropriate use of a range of resources to first understand the issues and possible approaches, and then to carry the project to a positive conclusion. The students become more aware of the social and cultural implications of technology, and substantially improve their oral and written communications skills. Another WPI Project Center is located in Cape Town, South Africa, where students also conduct activities in and for the informal settlements (squatter camps). As in Namibia and all of the IQP centers, the heart of the project is some type of professional-level activity designed and carried out by the students in and for the local community. After working with the student groups for 2 years, Mrs. Dianne C. Womersley, director of the Shaster Foundation in Cape Town, evaluated their performance, commenting, “The students showed astute and practical problem solving abilities. They worked extremely well with the community, in spite of the language difference. The WPI students came with an approach of wanting to learn as much as possible about the people they were helping and not only the technical aspects of the job. They acquitted their work with confidence, creativity, and good humor.” In particular, she comments on the important role of the residential faculty advisors, saying “The close involvement of the WPI faculty advisors, Professors Jiusto and Hersch contributed enormously toward the effectiveness of the students’ work, as well as putting the community at ease. They provided an excellent link between the students and the various sponsors and the community members. Working in a squatter camp is not easy or simple, yet by thorough consultation with

ASSESSMENT OF THE PLAN’S EFFECTIVENESS

253

community leaders, and open discussion with groups of residents, the faculty advisors were successful in creating a safe, stimulating and open environment for the students.” Summarizing the success of the effort, Mrs. Womersley state, “The students were obviously well prepared to work in such a difficult environment and got to grips with the situation quickly and effectively. The work they have done and the time spent in this community seems to have been a good character building exercise as well as an educational one. They were very open to different ways of thinking and solving problems that they had obviously not encountered before. They worked with a group of coresearchers who were residents of the community. They worked alongside each group and learned such valuable lessons from the WPI students and staff that many of them have subsequently found paid employment elsewhere. This job creation aspect of the WPI project has created a very positive impact on a community that has unemployment of 75%” [8]. 13.2.3.3 External Reviews The Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division, which oversees the IQP conducts regular internal reviews and occasional external evaluations. The most recent external review was conducted in 2004 by two consultants, Robert Shoenberg and Carl Herrin [9]. The specific question that Dr. Shoenberg addressed was, “What is the value of the IQP to a WPI education?” Or put another way, “Might students and faculty better spend their time on other sorts of educational activities or get the same benefits in ways that involved less time, energy, and anxiety?” Dr. Schoenberg’s conclusion is that “The IQP has exceptional value as an educational strategy, a means of outcome assessment, a source of identity and recognition for WPI, and a means of attracting students.” Nevertheless, the report identifies several areas where improvements could be made in this complex undertaking: . .

.

. .

Better relate each project to the underlying purposes of the IQP, and make these purposes clear to the students. Develop a means to provide the intensity and quality of experience to the on-campus projects that are the norm for IQPs completed at residential centers around the world. Careful preparation in social science methodology, writing skills, and the means by which large projects can be organized and managed, would be helpful. Broader faculty participation, with better faculty preparation for advising IQP work. Focus on IQPs that result in publishable work, both to assure quality and to attract a wider range of faculty.

254

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

Dr. Herrin’s focus was more on the operational aspects of the global IQP program but he also addressed academic aspects, with the following principal conclusions: . . . .

The global experience is rigorous and successful in accomplishing its educational goals. The “half-semester” time period is a valuable educational option that could be appropriate for other institutions. The policies and practices of the global program office are consistent with the best practices of the U.S. study abroad community. There are opportunities for improvements in the student preparation program, student evaluation mechanisms, and the re-entry of students back to campus.

Overall on campus, and in the conclusions of external reviewers, the IQP is seen as cornerstone of the WPI Plan, with often outstanding results, but also a continuing small number of projects that are either, or both, inappropriate to the goals of the IQP, or academically inadequate.

13.3 WHAT HAS WORKED WELL? With nearly 40 years of experience and over 10,000 engineering graduates, it can be stated with confidence that the WPI Plan works well in an overall sense. Here we will look into the individual components that contribute in a particular way to this overall success. The major aspects are as follows: . . . . . . .

Few and flexible curricular requirements. Lack of barriers between departments. Division of each semester into two academic terms with distinct academic activities in each term. Non punitive grading system. The Interactive Qualifying Project. The Major Qualifying Project (MQP). The “Virtual Project Center.”

13.3.1 Flexibility Flexibility has not been a characteristic of engineering programs, but at this point it is well recognized that a one-size fits all approach is not appropriate either for the student or for the profession. The range of potential topics

WHAT HAS WORKED WELL?

255

is too large, the number of technical specialties within any one discipline is too great, and the career choices are too numerous to be able to say, “Pass these courses and you will be an XYZ engineer.” Also, the present culture is very much based on individualization so that current students expect a degree of attention to their wishes. In this context a major challenge for the curriculum is to design a program that addresses both aspects of individualization while still representing a coherent education. Probably the greatest barrier to flexible engineering curricula is faculty worries about leaving something out. WPI follows several principles with respect to the establishment of degree requirements and major requirements that have a major impact on the student academic experience. One is that no course prerequisite requirements are enforced. Most course descriptions do include a “recommended background” listing courses whose material the student is expected to know or to master in a “just-in-time” manner. This accomplishes two quite different goals: (1) It puts the responsibility for course planning more clearly on the student and (2) it allows for a degree of scheduling flexibility that can be quite helpful. We have found that the students do not abuse this capability. Another aspect is a rather strict restriction on the amount of the 4-year program that can be specified by the major. In terms of credits, this is 90 credits out of the 135 credit degree requirement. This provides substantial room for academic activities outside of the science and engineering areas, in the social science and the humanities, including languages and performing arts. 13.3.2 Lack of Interdepartmental Barriers An aspect of WPI’s administration that has contributed to the ease of academic innovation has been the lack of any administrative division among the 14 academic departments. All of the department heads have reported to the provost and all students are admitted to the Institute with the same admissions requirements and standards regardless of intended major. This simple structure has put no barriers in place for any group of department heads or faculty to get together to discuss a new program, and likewise has made all students equally eligible. Two recent concrete outcomes have been the programs in Robotics Engineering and in Interactive Media and Game Development (IMGD). Robotics Engineering was created by collaboration among the Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Computer Science departments. Perhaps more dramatic is the IMGD program that was created via a collaboration between Computer Science and the Humanities and Arts department. This groundbreaking program unites the technical side of simulation and computer game development with the

256

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

storytelling, visual arts, and musical sides that are just as essential to a successful result. As the complexities of the disciplines continue to grow and as WPI broadens and deepens its activities, this administrative structure is being changed, with the creation of positions for deans of Engineering, Arts and Science, and Business. It is with some regret that the simplicity of the past must be left behind as WPI addresses the complexities and opportunities of today. An essential aspect of the responsibilities of each dean will be to foster the type of cooperation and implementation efficiency that has served WPI well. 13.3.3 Academic Calendar and Term Structure A fundamental part of the WPI Plan has been a four-term system during the academic year, plus an additional summer term. This system is best described as dividing each semester in half, with half of the semester’s academic activities (courses or projects) completed in the first 7 weeks of the semester, and the other half completed in the second half. The norm is three academic activities in each 7-week term. These may be three distinct courses, a large project carrying the credit of three courses, or some combination of courses and projects. As a specific example, consider a first year engineering student who would be taking calculus, physics, and humanities courses. In the first term that student might take Calculus I, Physics I, and American History. In the second term of the fall semester he/she could take Calculus II, Physics II, and Economics. Each of these courses is taught intensively and carries credit approximately equal to a 3 credit semester course. Hence in a semester the student nominally completes 18 credit hours. This system has several advantages: It allows the student to focus on fewer activities at one time; it provides for a rapid movement through sequential courses; and it provides flexibility for full-time project experience in half-semester units, facilitating off-campus experiences. Finally, it provides the practical benefit of four end-of-term “panic periods” per year, rather than just two, with fewer activities to be brought to conclusion in each. There are some negative aspects, including the administrative and registration burden of four terms, four grade reports, and so on, per year. Also, for some students and some subjects, the pace through the material may be faster than optimum. Finally, the intensive nature of the courses introduces difficulties with illness of students or faculty. Support on campus for this system remains high, with students almost universally expressing very strong support. Some faculty express the concerns mentioned above, as well as concern with the difficulty in getting away from campus for conferences while teaching a 7 week course that may meet every day of the week. This can be balanced to some extent by scheduling a faculty term with no teaching.

WHAT HAS WORKED WELL?

257

13.3.4 Grading System The undergraduate grading system is designed to implement in a very concrete way the underlying principles of WPI’s educational system, in particular to empower students to design their own programs without undue fear of the consequences of a mistake, and to facilitate cooperation and teamwork rather than competition among students. Hence, there is no recorded failing grade for the large majority of academic activities, and a rank in class is not calculated. WPI’s grades are A, B, C, “NR”, and (in limited cases) NAC. The first three grades have the standard meaning; “NR” means “no record” and indicates that if a student fails to achieve at least a C grade in an activity, no record of that activity appears on the student’s transcript. In the case of major project work (the IQP and MQP), a recorded failing grade (NAC or Not Acceptable) is possible. This option is made available because in most project work the student makes a commitment to teammates and often to a project sponsor. Those commitments should be made with care, and if the student fails to follow through, it is not just his/her learning that suffers. Others will be negatively impacted, and hence this circumstance merits a recorded failing grade. Faculty use this option very rarely, but it is used. Students must make satisfactory academic progress to avoid probation and suspension by passing a certain number of activities each semester, so there are consequences to failing courses. This system (with one modification as described in Section 13.4) has been in place for 40 years, and receives strong support from students and faculty. Discussions do occur regarding possible changes (such as adding plus and minus grades and the D grade) but to date these have resulted in reconfirmation of the current grading system. 13.3.5 The Interactive Qualifying Project Arguably the most distinctive component of the WPI Plan is the “Interactive Qualifying Project,”, which is generally completed in the junior year. This project is the counterpart of the “Major Qualifying Project,” which is normally completed in the senior year. Both projects carry 1 unit of credit in WPI’s system, nominally equivalent to 9 semester hours. This distinctive aspect of the WPI educational program was recognized with the Theodore M. Hesburgh Certificate of Excellence in 2003. This award is named in honor of Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., a nationally renowned educator and President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. The award recognizes programs that enhance undergraduate teaching and learning, and encourages their creation at America’s colleges and universities. The overall goal of the IQP is to lead students to understand the interrelationships among the various aspects of their education through project

258

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

work as well as to teach specific skills including teamwork, oral and written communication, and project management. Generally this involves some aspect of the relation between technology and society, in the context of a rather larger, generally ill-defined problem. The IQP represents one sixteenth of our students’ academic credit and is central to WPI’s educational philosophy. Hence it is important to regularly review the academic content and rigor of the experience, and a variety of such reviews have been conducted, as described previously.

13.3.6 Major Qualifying Project Engineering design projects at the senior level, often referred to as “capstone design projects” have been part of engineering curricula, and have been required for ABET accreditation, for decades. The project experience at WPI is distinctive in at least two fundamental respects: a major project must be completed by all students as a degree requirement (the “Major Qualifying Project”), not just be engineering students, and it is indeed a “major” activity, representing academic credit equivalent to three normal courses. Other distinctive features include the fact that each project is organized and registered individually by the student team and the faculty advisor, rather than being organized in a course format. This seemingly small difference generates truly independent projects, and of course it increases faculty workload. It is desired that as many MQPs as possible be sponsored by off-campus organizations. Some of these sponsored projects are organized into project centers that may be residential (as in Silicon Valley or Ireland) or within commuting distance (as for the MIT-Lincoln Labs project center). A challenge with corporate sponsorship is that corporations often have their own internship and/or co-op programs, and it can be difficult to match the corporate format and goals with WPI’s format and academic goals for the MQPs. Since Academic Year 2006–2007 all Qualifying Project reports have been deposited electronically in the WPI Gordon Library and are publically available via the web. This publication reinforces the professional nature of the projects. 13.3.7 “Virtual Project Centers” WPI’s “Global Perspectives Program” wherein half or more of each graduating class has received a substantial overseas experience stands with the Interactive Qualifying Project as one of the two outstanding components of the WPI educational system. This program is described in detail elsewhere, but in the context of “What Works Well” it is important

WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN?

259

to point out a critical aspect of the program’s success: the project centers around the world have no continuing physical presence. WPI neither owns nor leases any real estate. Students and faculty live in rented furnished apartments for the duration of the project (7–9 weeks) and perform their work at the sponsoring agencies. The larger centers generally make use of a local coordinator on a part-time basis, paid a modest fee. This person arranges for housing and similar details but is not necessarily involved with the conduct of the projects themselves. The administrative and academic structure consists of three components: the Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division (IGSD), the faculty directors of each project center, and the faculty advisors for the actual projects who reside with the students on site. The IGSD oversees all these aspects, and in particular manages the student application process, the identification of directors and advisors, and the many necessary informational and risk management activities. Given this significant, but modest administrative structure, the key element is a faculty champion who acts, at least initially, as the director for the establishment and operation of a new project center. This person, with help from the IGSD will recruit additional faculty to help with the advising. A key benefit of the virtual nature of the project centers is that they can be opened and closed as a variety of conditions warrant. These include student interest, personal safety at the site, availability of local project sponsors, and most importantly, the interest of faculty as advisors and center directors. There is no need to keep a center operating for nonacademic reasons such as real estate commitments.

13.4 WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN? While the WPI Plan has succeeded quite well, some changes from its initial format were needed, and a few other aspects, while working well overall, present operational or academic challenges. The most significant of these issues are described in this section. 13.4.1 Use of Outcomes as the Primary Graduation Criteria An initial graduation requirement of the WPI Plan was the passing of a “Competency Exam.” This was a 3- or 4-day written and oral examination conducted individually for each student in his/her senior year. The examination was in the nature of an entry-level professional project (an engineering project for large majority of WPI’s students who were majoring in engineering). Students worked individually and were allowed to consult with others, within limits, and with a written record of those consultations. The exam

260

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

concluded with an oral presentation by the student of the project’s results, and questioning by a committee of two or three faculty. These exams were administered three or four times per year between terms. The exam could be retaken an unlimited number of times, but the student could not graduate without passing the exam. Across the academic department the passing rate varied between about 70 and 80%. That a significant number of students who had successfully completed the course and project requirements failed this exam was a serious concern to faculty, and of course to the students who failed. Dr. Harrisberger, in the final NSF report, noted inherent problems with any exam that attempts such a comprehensive and high stakes evaluation as the WPI Competence Exam did. He noted, “. . . the problems of faculty load, uniformity of assessment, and (educational outcome) objectives become very real.” “It should assess, not wipe out or embarrass by ‘failure’.” “I strongly favor combining the assessment of the MQP (and perhaps even the IQP) with the competency assessment” [2]. These comments presaged by a decade the eventual decision that the competency exam was not effectively meeting either of its primary objectives: to motivate appropriate learning by students, or to fairly and consistently evaluate readiness for graduation. It is worth noting that this exam did have positive aspects, and in the end the alumni and students were among its strongest supporters. 13.4.2 Original Plan Grading System The original grading system included only two passing grades: “Acceptable” and “Acceptable with Distinction,” as well as the “NR” or “No Record” grade. The purpose of this system was to de-emphasize the importance of grades and to encourage students to focus on the learning itself. Over time it became clear that the desired result was not being achieved, and further that our unconventional grading system was neither understood nor accepted by the external community. The “Acceptable” grade spanned the range from just below an A to somewhere in the D range, with the result that students received neither helpful feedback on how well they had mastered the course content nor the motivation that striving for a B versus a C can bring. In the mid-1980s this system was replaced by the A, B, C, NR system that is still in use. 13.4.3 Variability of Project Quality Both the senior-level (MQP) and junior-level (IQP) projects inevitably contain many variable aspects since they are based on real world situations, and hence they present opportunities for variable academic quality. These variables include student ability, project topic, support by the sponsoring agency,

WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN?

261

resources available to students, faculty attention to the project, and faculty skill in providing the education and support that the students need. Indeed, informal reviews of projects in the early years made this variability clear. The primary means of addressing this problem has been the periodic (generally alternate year) reviews of project reports by ad hoc faculty committees. These reviews have been quite effective in identifying weaknesses in the conduct of projects, with follow-up generally overseen by department heads or the IGSD. This form of continuous improvement has been quite effective in general. However, as pointed out elsewhere, there continues to be some difficulty in maintaining uniformly high quality in on-campus IQPs. To some extent this is inherent in that desirable IQP topics are somewhat open-ended, often without a clear methodology or expected outcome. Given this situation, students are likely to gravitate to their regular coursework that is more easily understood, and where the goals are clear. With off-campus IQPs the students have no other coursework, and hence are more ready to immerse themselves in the IQP topics, with generally very good results. 13.4.4 Cost and Sustainability The lecture-based course is by far the most common educational delivery mechanism for several understandable reasons: it is reasonably effective at the delivery of some types of content, and it is quite efficient. However, “efficient” does not necessarily imply “effective” and some of the important educational goals of the WPI approach cannot be achieved with the lecture approach. WPI’s project-based approach is substantially more faculty time intensive per credit hour and per student than the lecture approach. It also requires the faculty to adapt their teaching with each new project and each group of students, as well as devoting time to organizing the projects and possibly to negotiating with potential sponsors. The WPI Plan, with its emphasis on project work, flexibility of programs, and close student–faculty contact is inherently more expensive than a traditional course-based system with a rigid curriculum followed by all students. A rough estimate is that the advising of student projects adds approximately one course equivalent to the workload of each faculty member. That is not entirely a net addition because if those students did not complete projects they would acquire the equivalent credit via course work, which would require some, but less, faculty time. The global program also represents an incremental cost, primarily in the administrative overhead of managing the global sites and managing risk. These costs, while not negligible, are very much in line with the cost variability of traditional programs considering factors such as class size, teaching by tenured or tenure track faculty versus the use of teaching assistants or adjuncts, and so on.

262

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

13.5 HOW CAN THE WPI PLAN BE IMPLEMENTEDELSEWHERE? Is the WPI Plan transferable to other universities? If the intent is to simply install the major components at another university without going through the planning and visioning process, the answer is almost certainly, “no.” There simply will not be the required level of commitment to the necessary effort. However, many of the individual components have value by themselves. Recall the major components of the WPI Plan: . . . . . .

Student flexibility in program planning within broad guidelines. A grading system that encourages academic risk taking and cooperation among students. An outcomes orientation with respect to all academic activities. Emphasis on both theory and the practical application of that theory for a useful purpose via substantial projects. Seven-week terms with relatively few academic activities per term. Emphasis on student responsibility for learning.

These individual aspects relate to each other synergistically, but each of them also has value in itself. Any implementation must consider the local context, and each of these aspects is quite significant both academically and operationally. Hence, it would be important to precede any planned implementation with a planning process whereby those involved understand why the change is being implemented, and what the expected results and impacts will be.

13.6 LESSONS LEARNED: BRINGING ABOUT CHANGE The WPI planning group recognized that the details of the new educational program must be supported by a clear, concise goal: For this college to function effectively, its educational goal or objective must be much more clearly defined than it is at present, and that goal or objective must be promoted and implemented consistently throughout the Institute. Without a definition of what we are attempting to do, our entire enterprise will weaken and splinter into divergent and competing functions [1].

From this rather dry statement the planners went on to produce the Goal of WPI quoted earlier. In reviewing the history of the design and implementation of the WPI Plan, the following principles emerge:

WHAT IS NEXT?

.

. . . .

263

Planning is necessary, and serves at least two purposes: the development of an implementation roadmap, and just as important, as a vehicle for the necessary discussion and consensus building. Leadership is required, in particular to develop and promote a consistent vision and to engender some sense of urgency. Flexibility and willingness to compromise while maintaining the vision are essential. It is important that everyone understands that “the world has changed,” and that there is no going back. The pedagogy must be supported with academic and administrative structure, as with the Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division to support the global program.

These points are straightforward but it is significant that they are quite diverse, and each plays an important role in the success of the undertaking. It is not coincidental that the name of the WPI approach to education is called the “WPI Plan.” It was the development of this plan that brought the faculty together and provided the framework for their discussions and then for action. After adoption by the faculty and with the concrete support of the administration, the plan then provided the blueprint for implementation. Vital administrative guidance was provided by the Dean of Undergraduate Studies (Dean William R. Grogan for the entire implementation period) and by the “General Implementation Committee,” which Dean Grogan headed. A key aspect of the plan is that it mandates fundamental changes in such basic academic practices as term length, grading practices, curricular requirements, and project as well as classroom experiences. Each of these has a sound pedagogical basis. In addition they are very important symbolically in that they indicate to students and faculty that “This is a different approach to education” and hence inspire consideration of the desired accomplishments of the educational process. 13.7 WHAT IS NEXT? Since the implementation of the WPI Plan for undergraduate education many faculty have desired to carry out a similar process for the graduate program. It seems that now, 40 years later that time has arrived. Until now, the graduate and undergraduate programs have been quite independent, with the graduate program operating on a semester system with conventional curricula and academic calendars that were not well coordinated with the undergraduate program. For the 2010–2011 academic year the graduate and undergraduate calendars have been synchronized so that the fall graduate semester begins on

264

FORTY YEARS OF OUTCOMES-BASED PROJECT CENTRIC EDUCATION

the same day as the first undergraduate term, and the last day of the semester falls on the last day of the second undergraduate term, with similar synchrony in the spring. Also, some graduate courses are being redeveloped for the 7-week format, and graduate projects are being implemented in some MS programs in place of theses. These represent small steps, and it is the hope of some faculty that they will lead to a comprehensive “WPI Plan for Graduate Education,” at the masters as well as at the PhD level. MS programs have received little attention at most institutions in comparison to both the undergraduate and PhD programs. At WPI we believe that the time is right to change that. Professionally oriented masters-level education will be nearly as important for the future as bachelors-level education has been until now. The next 40 years promises to be as exciting as the last 40.

REFERENCES 1. Faculty Planning Committee, “A Planning Program for Worcester Polytechnic Institute: The Future of Two Towers—Part Three: A Model.” in The Story of the WPI Plan. Worcester, MA: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Sept 1969. Available: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Library/Archives/Plan/Three/. 2. L. Harrisberger, B. Mazlish, G. Pake, K. Picha, E. Reed, D. Riesman and J. Whinnery, Restructuring Undergraduate Science Education at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts. A Summative Assessment by the NSF-WPI Project Advisory Committee Constituted from 1972–1975. Project Report No. 1, July, 1975. Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED129588.pdf. 3. K. Cohen, The Impact of the WPI Plan on its Students and Graduates, 1972–1978: A Six Year Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1978. 4. “Best Colleges and Universities.” US News& World Report, 2007. 5. S. G. Brainard, Project to Assess the Climate in Engineering, Final Report for WPI. PACE Project, University of Washington, Sept 2009. 6. D. DiBiasioand and N. Mello, “Multi-Level Assessment of Program Outcomes: Assessing a Nontraditional Study Abroad Program in the Engineering Disciplines,” Frontiers: the Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, pp. 237–252, 2004. Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ891459.pdf. 7. M. Elmes and E. Loiacono, “ Project-Based Service-Learning for an Unscripted World: The WPI IQP Experience,” International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 23–39, 2009. 8. D. Womersley, Director, Shaster Foundation, Cape Town, South Africa, private correspondence to Richard Vaz, Dean of IGSD. 9. R. Shoenberg and C. Herrin, “IQP Review,” report to IGSD, WPI, 2004.

CHAPTER 14

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE ELI FROMM

Much has been written about the changing face of engineering education. Since the 1980s the community has realized that the engineering educational program must do more than prepare our students with strong foundations in science, mathematics, the engineering sciences, and the specialized courses of the many disciplines within engineering. Over these last few decades this need has become increasingly more evident. Serious consideration began as to whether in the decades since the 1950s, the pendulum of change in engineering education to be much more engineering science centric at the expense of engineering practice had perhaps swung too far. Such issues as providing an educational environment nurturing of synthesis as well as analysis, the need for students to understand their work and profession in a broad societal context, or the need for students to be aware of the business and marketing aspects of the products of engineering practice became part of the conversation. In more recent years many additional exposures and characteristics for graduates to attain were identified. The dilemma then, and to a great extent still today, is how to accomplish all that we would like. The chapters preceding this have elucidated many of these issues from both a historical perspective as well as excellent examples of actions taken. The mid-1980s saw growing pressures facing engineering schools across the country. Several national and international studies had cited the shortcomings in engineering education in the United States [1,2,3]. In the late 1980s, the National Science Foundation’s Education and Human Resources Directorate initiated a significant challenge and support process to the engineering education community calling for change in engineering

Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

265

266

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

education. That program supported initiatives that were, for the most part, single institution oriented. Drexel’s initiative supported through that program began in 1988 and became known as E4 as an acronym for Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineering Students. While presenting the program’s concepts and successful results to the NSF Director in 1990, the issue of extending such efforts to support much larger multi-institutional initiatives that would cross-institutional boundaries was raised. NSF’s Belmont conference followed which ultimately led to the NSF’s Engineering Education Coalitions Program under the auspices of the Engineering Directorate. By the mid-1990s a number of initiatives had been undertaken. A convocation held under the auspices of the National Research Council formally addressed what had by then become evident; that the need for engineering education reform needed to also address a significant number of noncurricular content issues. The resulting report [4] addressed such wideranging issues as access, literacy, teaching at the precollege level, competency, depth, curriculum organization and structure, pedagogy, technologies, faculty development, recognition and rewards, resources, and partnerships. All of these issues, and more, have come to be realized as important to any serious reform of engineering education. It is the addressing of such a breath of issues that differentiated the early NSF supported programs from those of the Engineering Education Coalitions. This breadth of issues, incidentally, is equally important to the modernization of the educational programs of other disciplines as well. The past decade saw further emphasis and recognition to the need to address engineering education through such venues as the National Academy of Engineering that established the Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE), the Bernard M. Gordon Prize, the modification to its rules of membership election to include significant innovations and contributions to engineering education as well as engineering practice, the more recent addition of an annual symposium on Frontiers of Education, as well as numerous workshops and reports. Thus, there has been, and continues to be, a continuum of venues through which support and encouragement for innovations in engineering education have evolved over the past decades. What follows is first a description of initiatives at Drexel University starting in the mid-1980s followed by a view of what may lay ahead. A fundamental premise to the initiatives at Drexel was the need to fundamentally restructure and reorganize the entire engineering educational enterprise; meaning aspects of the educational enterprise that transcended that which is typically in just the control of the College of Engineering yet must be brought to play within the engineering educational environment. Furthermore, an associated premise was to do so in a manner that would make the educational enterprise more time efficient and effective for our students.

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

267

In the mid-1980s, the College of Engineering at Drexel University embarked on a thorough reevaluation of its undergraduate engineering curriculum. The direction was cast from two perspectives: the authoritative findings and recommendations of the several studies noted earlier [1,2,3] that documented the need for change and our consensus of the characteristics and capabilities that twenty-first century graduates would need. These were considered in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the then existing program with the result being a blueprint for restructuring the first 2 years of the engineering curriculum. Beyond the traditional aspects of most engineering education programs of the time that included fundamental sciences, engineering sciences, professional-level coursework, and liberal studies. Drexel had an extensive senior design program, a microcomputer requirement for all students across the University, which was unique at the time and had been extensively incorporated into the curriculum and a philosophy that supported cooperative education for the entire student body. However, the curriculum was overburdened, had insufficient integration of early laboratory work and problemsolving orientation that limited students’ appreciation of the diversity of subjects engineers need to cover; insufficient integration of engineering with nonengineering aspects of communications, business, technology policy, and arts and science; and a minimal capacity to foster enthusiasm for learning and critical judgment. The assessment led to the conclusion that the pressure on the curriculum required the educational experience to be significantly restructured. Restructuring the lower division was selected as the focus thus providing some initial limiting of project scope while becoming a driving force for change to the upper division. The emphasis was to retain the existing basic elements noted above while providing greater emphasis on synthesis and design, maintenance of depth and strength in technical subject matter, stronger emphasis on nontechnical education to develop historical and societal perspectives, development of management and communication skills, interdisciplinary exposure, international exposure, and preparation for continuing professional development and career-long learning. Unfortunately such demands on an already overburdened curriculum would leave little time for independent thought, leadership development, and the “joy of understanding” and thus called for significant restructuring of the academic program. The College of Engineering established a group of faculty representatives in 1988 of all the engineering disciplines, joined at times by faculty from other colleges across the university, to address the challenge. The committee defined the characteristics that twenty-first century graduates should possess and wrote a set of corresponding curricular emphases.

268

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

14.1 DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF GRADUATES . . . . . . . . . . . .

A strong foundation in basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering fundamentals. A capacity to apply these fundamentals to a variety of problems. Knowledge and experience in experimental methods. Knowledge and skills in the fundamentals of engineering practice. Advanced knowledge of selected professional-level technologies. Strong oral and written communication skills. A sense of corporate and business basics. A sense of social, ethical, political, and human responsibility. A historical and societal perspective of technology’s impact. A unifying and interdisciplinary view. A culture for lifelong learning. A creative and intellectual spirit, a capacity for critical judgment, and enthusiasm for learning.

14.2 CORRESPONDING PROGRAM EMPHASES .

. .

.

.

.

Emphasis on the central body of knowledge, experience, methods, and attitudes that form the fabric of the engineering profession and will continue to be valid and important. Emphasis on the unifying and interdisciplinary aspects of engineering rather than the parochial interests of individual disciplines. Emphasis on experimental methods in engineering; their use in analysis, design, development, and manufacturing; and the interpretation and effective presentation, both written and oral, of experimental results. Emphasis on the computer as an aid to study; an object of study; a professional tool; an intellectual tool; an instrument for social change; and most important, its revolutionizing impact on the nature and practice of the engineering profession in all disciplines. Emphasis on the use of a wide variety of educational methodologies and technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness. A special emphasis on self-paced and directed study to develop skills and attitudes essential for continued professional development after graduation. Emphasis on the imperative for continuous and vigorous lifelong learning for professional achievement and personal enrichment.

CORRESPONDING PROGRAM EMPHASES

. .

269

Emphasis on excellent written and oral communication as a prerequisite of professional success. Emphasis on the ever-increasing importance of social awareness and responsibility of the engineer and the profession.

The restructuring was conducted in a systematic experiment that brought engineering up-front as the centerpiece of the intellectual issues confronting the student and thus brought the study of the basic sciences, mathematics and engineering fundamentals in context and concurrent with open ended engineering inquiry and engineering experimental methods. While achieving these objectives, imbedded in the program through a group of interwoven course components, the students also developed better oral and written communication skills, leadership skills, and a host of other important attributes important for an engineering graduate to function well in the socially interactive, communicative, and business climate of modern industry. This was coupled with a creative and intellectual spirit, a capacity for critical judgment, an enthusiasm for learning, and the opportunity to see enjoyment in the pursuit of engineering studies and an engineering career. Faculty teams broke down traditional institutional cross-department and cross-college barriers to plan and implement the restructured program. The program began as an initial experiment1 in 1989 with 100 students, representing 15% of the incoming freshman class, and incrementally increased annually after the first few years. With assistance of a broad segment of the University, including not only the engineering faculty but also faculty from mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and the humanities, the subject matter was initially organized into four interwoven sequences. . . . .

Mathematical and Scientific Foundations of Engineering Fundamentals of Engineering An Engineering Laboratory A nonresident component

These interwoven sequences either replace or integrate material from 37 existing mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and the humanities courses in the University’s traditional lower division curriculum. The first two changed, unified, and integrated in a cross-institutional manner the material that had previously been delivered in six mathematics, 1

An Enhanced Educational Experience for Engineering Students (E4) was supported in part by NSF award USE-8854555 and the General Electric Foundation.

270

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

four physics, one biology, one computer programming, three chemistry, and several engineering courses. The engineering laboratory was a new component that would become a central core of the interwoven set and served as the keystone to bringing engineering up-front. A central element of the strategy was that all three components were intimately coupled and synchronized so that they complemented and amplified one another. From the outset, problems addressed in class were of an engineering character. Their solutions were presented by identifying and conveying problem-solving techniques, mathematical and scientific principles, and experimental methods. The engineering laboratory then became the venue in which the students conducted physical experiments and completed exercises aimed at encouraging curiosity and presenting intellectual challenges with opportunities for critical analysis; all in support of what was discussed in the two course sequences. The integration of this unified whole was important. The objectives of bringing engineering to the students early, lightening overburdened curriculum, while meeting the program emphases noted earlier were being met. The program moved from a science and humanities centric first 2 years to an engineering centric one. Furthermore, students no longer faced multiple and sometimes isolated individual courses but, rather, found a vertically integrated package that was team-developed and taught. Retention rates of the experimental group increased considerably over the control (traditional program). “On-Track,” identified as completing the work expected for an “on-time” graduation also increased. Tracking the first several classes indicated first to second year retention rates increased from an average of about 70% for the control group to about 85% on average for the experimental group. On-time completion rates for the first several cohorts that the author tracked increased approximately 50% from the low 40% to the mid-60% range. Anecdotal feedback from co-op employers was extremely positive with many expressing significant positive surprise at the ability of the students to work in teams, to express their ideas, and to formulate an approach to a given problem or situation. The changing educational structure, organization, and culture appeared to be having the positive impact hoped for. Since all College of Engineering students were part of the University’s co-op program, the thought had been that during the nonresident co-op education experience the students could be engaged in a more intense professional and personal enrichment program than was embedded in the on-campus curriculum. These would be complementary efforts. The concept was to develop modules dealing with nontechnical issues such as marketing, business organization, societal impact, literature, ethics, sustainability, and so on, and that a very large portfolio of such modules would be developed as a

CORRESPONDING PROGRAM EMPHASES

271

library for students to sign out and complete while on co-op assignment. That aspect of the program plan did not, unfortunately, work out well. While a few modules were developed, the major difficulty was the lack of wherewithal and resources to develop the modules to the appropriate professional stand alone level for the students to sign out. The concept certainly was in keeping with using all available venues to bring the nontechnical aspects to a twenty-first century engineering education without the continual overburdening of the curriculum with additional on-campus courses. It is an opportunity that should be embraced. The success of retaining students in engineering and their progress during the early years of the experiment drew considerable attention. It led, in 1992, to the phase-in and institutionalization of the new program for all entering engineering students at Drexel and also led to the formation of a coalition of institutions, the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition,2 to pursue even broader goals. While the earlier E4 efforts developed cross-departmental and cross-college collaborations for engineering education within a single institution, the Coalition provided the opportunity for cross-institutional collaborations in the development and delivery of innovative engineering education initiatives. The partner institutions of the coalition were Drexel University as the lead institution with Columbia University, Cooper Union, New Jersey Institute of Technology, The Ohio State University, Polytechnic University, and the University of South Carolina. In addition, the first phase included the University of Pennsylvania, Case Western Reserve University, and Florida International University. The coalition’s first charge was to extend the earlier concepts of integration and engineering up-front [5] to the new partner institutions. The early work of the Coalition served to innovate and develop the initial products and processes and to bring those ideas to both local fruition and disseminate the results of that work. During this period extensive cross-institutional curricular initiatives were begun at both the lower and upper division of the curriculum. Teams of faculty from multiple institutions worked together to develop specific materials that would be utilized in each of their institution’s educational program. As an illustration of the cross-institutional teamwork, the partners, from the beginning, established a policy of support for institutional efforts toward the common agenda in proportion to the degree by which each participated in 2

The Gateway Engineering Education Coalition was supported in part by The National Science Foundation awards EEC-9109794 and EEC-9727413. The partner institutions in both phases were Drexel University as the lead institution with Columbia University, Cooper Union, New Jersey Institute of Technology, The Ohio State University, Polytechnic University, and the University of South Carolina. In addition, the first phase included the University of Pennsylvania, Case Western Reserve University, and Florida International University. Available: http:// www.gatewaycoalition.org.

272

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

specific program initiatives and projects rather than an a priori formulaic division of available funds. The Coalition, however, addressed much more than development of curriculum content and its implementation. It began to also address the issues of educational program organization and structure, faculty and student professional development (i.e., educational methodology as well as content), cooperative team learning, innovative uses of instructional technologies, the special concerns to increase the percentage of underrepresented populations among engineering graduates, providing interdisciplinary exposure to students, and an extensive organized assessment program. At the heart of any educational enterprise are the interrelationships between how we organize and structure the enterprise to establish the best environment, what we teach, and how we teach. The Coalition, as one element, fostered significant organizational and structure change that brought engineering upfront into the freshman year. One such aspect from the time of the Coalition’s inception in 1992 was a continual increase in number of freshman students participating in experimental design. Freshman design served as both a motivator and facilitator as a vehicle by which students gained expertise in engineering principles, the design process, statistical analysis, use of CAD tools, and model fabrication. Also common were the embedded important nontechnical issues of teamwork, time management, leadership, the interpersonal issues in engineering practice, and writing and the humanities in relation to their engineering interests. Coalition schools implemented comprehensive design experiences into the freshman year enabling first year students to better grasp the foundation mathematics and sciences through an engineering context. The various first year design programs at each institution continuously increased the number of participants (students and faculty) as more modules and models from prior developments were integrated into existing courses and moved pilot projects into the mainstream of the curriculum. Initially less than 150 students participated; the Drexel E4 legacy. Ten years later it became standard for the entire freshman class of most partner schools, almost 4000, to participate in a freshman design experience. This focus on freshman design and bringing engineering into the first year thus became mainstream standard practice and the evolutionary movement to change the structure of the engineering educational enterprise was taking hold. This, together with the integration of the humanities and the sciences into the engineering core, brought an immediate sense of application and context. In addition to an extensive freshman design program, the freshman engineering laboratory up-front, and the integration of curricular components, which led to improvement in communications skills, the Coalition’s program provided an extensive structural, educational culture, and content model

CORRESPONDING PROGRAM EMPHASES

273

change. A primary state in this model was the recognition that an undergraduate program is a set of interlinked parts that must work synergistically rather than a mere collection of independent courses. This focus had significant support at Gateway institutions. The degree of evolution of this change varied by institution from initially being just part of the freshman curriculum, forward to the subsequent years, and to the implementation of a fully changed curriculum at some. At the upper division, the Coalition leadership identified a limited number of focus areas. These included engineering biotechnology, materials science and engineering, manufacturing and concurrent engineering, and environmental engineering. In each case these multidisciplinary topics were the result of multi-institutional program developments through faculty teams having worked across the Coalition. In the Biotechnology area the Coalition institutions developed an integrated approach to teaching both biological and engineering principles involved in development and manufacture of biotechnology products. Topics included genetic engineering principles, biopharmaceutical manufacturing, drug delivery, and biosensing and bioinstrumentation. In the materials area the partners developed education modules that demonstrated materials science and engineering concepts at introductory and intermediate levels that contained hands-on laboratory and instrumentation procedures, multimedia instruction modules, and video demonstrations. The Concurrent Engineering/Rapid Design-Prototyping team created a set of courses that combined design and manufacturing from the Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering perspective. Teleconferencing permitted information and equipment to be shared among participating universities. Several software modules in the area of Solid and Hazardous Waste, Unit Processes, Environmental Hydraulics, and databases in Waste Water Quality and landfill management were developed as part of Gateway’s Environmental Engineering initiatives. In most instances materials were presented in self-standing electronic-based multimedia modules. This permitted portability and transferability in keeping with Gateway’s look to the future. These segments were organized to permit faculty to pick and choose tools according to the implementation strategies of their university. The infusion of networking technologies into the educational process was a central theme of the Coalition’s focus area of Educational Technology and Methodology. The Coalition created a communication infrastructure that enabled and encouraged the sharing, online, of a variety of distributed resources such as faculty, laboratories, and learning/teaching tools. The focus was on expanding the boundaries of instruction beyond the classroom and beyond each institution. This included electronic sharing of courseware, remote access and control to laboratory and other unique facilities, video

274

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

conferencing among institutions connecting Gateway colleagues and students, bringing experts into the classroom in real time, sharing images and programs as well as textual material in real time, and conducting electronic collaboration on course design and instruction. Aggressive experiments in the use of these tools, both within and among Coalition institutions, dominated the technology activities. In a leading initiative the Coalition very early established a network that helped share in the use of specialized design model fabrication equipment across the Coalition and, as a forefront of things to come, experimented with web-based remote control of laboratory equipment and experimentation. The changing educational environment was enhanced by the renewed dedication of senior faculty to undergraduate engineering education. Many faculty began to devote considerably more time to the undergraduate experience and saw their role as mentors and coaches in a different role than the previous lecturing posture. Compared to 1992, the number of tenured and tenure track engineering faculty teaching freshman and sophomores, where the retention issues are generally most acute, increased from slightly more than one-fifth of the faculty to more than one-half by 2002. The number of senior faculty so involved increased from a very few to onethird of the faculty. The concept of what constitutes scholarship among engineering faculty also changed. The number of educationally oriented publications or presentations by the faculty of the Coalition schools increased more than sixfold per year from the time of formation of the Coalition to 2002. The number of interdisciplinary courses also increased greatly and the number of student active contacts with engineering courses that embedded the issues of communication skills and engineering ethics increased 12-fold. Students and faculty worked in teams across institutional boundaries in such programs as concurrent engineering. As an example, one project involved students from five geographically dispersed schools working on the design and production of a feeding device for a quadriplegic individual. Students conferred via all forms of telecommunications including video. Note that this was before the days of Skype. After agreeing on the basic design, each group worked on a specific segment and ultimately all components fit together to provide the completed system. In this manner the students worked in an environment similar to that which they might encounter in a multinational corporation. Student development, of course, was already taking place as part of the teamwork and cross-institutional work of the curriculum but a specific initiative also focused on oral and writing skills. This was primarily during the first 2 years with secondary emphasis on lifelong learning at that time. Cooperative team learning and teamwork skills began with, and were heavily addressed in the freshman design laboratory portion of the program. The

CORRESPONDING PROGRAM EMPHASES

275

initiatives within the Educational Technology and Methodology Program area were supportive of each of these foregoing foci. While an underlying premise of the Coalition was improved retention of all entering students, there was also a specific emphasis placed on increased retention and graduation rate for those populations traditionally underrepresented in engineering. Each of the Coalition institutions had been conducting a number of traditional programs in support of improving the attraction and retention of members of underrepresented populations. The Coalition fostered-specific additional or expanded initiatives such as bridge programs, sensitivity training, mentoring programs, summer research opportunities, a Minority Alumni Directory for support and networking, a pilot Educational Learning Assistants Program for Residential Living, Coaching Skills in Computer Software Programs for Engineers project, a Multimedia Graduate Resource Center, Building Learning Environments for New Students in Engineering program, and a centrally driven program of Getting Plugged In: Improving Faculty/Student Interaction. In AY 2000/2001 the Coalition’s percentage of undergraduate engineering degrees that were awarded by the partner institutions collectively to women had increased 46%, to African Americans 118%, and to Hispanic students 65% when compared to AY 1991/1992, the benchmark year prior to initiation of the Coalition. The total number of undergraduate engineering degrees awarded was 12.7% greater when compared to the same benchmark year. A comparison of first to second year retention of women and other underrepresented students in the Gateway Coalition schools was at least 20% greater than the national average based on a national study of 175 institutions providing degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) as reported by the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) in 2002. The programs noted earlier, the efforts to improve faculty Comparison of Gateway Coalition’s first to second year retention rates against a national sample 100

Percent

90 80 70

175 SMET Schools (CSRDE) Gateway Coaliton

60 50

All Female Minorities National sample of 1999 science, engineering, and technology majors as collected by the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE): www.occe.ou.edu/csrde

276

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

100

Percent

90 80 70 60 50

All

Female

Minorities

175 STEM Schools (CSRDE) Gateway Coalition First to second year retention comparison

awareness, the facilitation of interacts between faculty and minority and women students, and the charge to each institution to establish an administrative office/structure in support of this objective certainly helped meet the challenges. There was also a major cultural shift and revision in the understanding for need and value of outcomes assessment at different levels of the educational program. The initiative began with a disciplined approach of groups addressing the questions of who the audience was, what the objectives were, how one would know when the objectives were achieved, what tools were necessary to generate those assessments, and, finally, to establish a feedback process enabling the faculty and leadership to make valuable use of the information obtained. The assessment program combined a centrally led as well as a locally distributed component. All schools within the Coalition implemented formal course and faculty evaluation systems, some electronically based, which involved student responses and feedback to faculty and departments to encourage continuous adjustments and improvements. It began with a clear definition of course objectives and expected outcomes for each course. These were provided to the students at the beginning of a course and continued with student responses indicating the degree to which they believed those objectives were met. To assist, a toolbox of aids was developed including a department workbook, a faculty workbook, and a companion faculty inventory workbook. In the early 1990s, such a process was essentially nonexistent in engineering education programs but became a sustained embedded process at all the Gateway Coalition schools of engineering. A complete turnkey web-based assessment program as well as tools and other aids to assist in identifying objectives, establishing outcomes, and sample survey instruments were developed and made available via the Coalition’s web repository.

A LOOK TO THE FUTURE

277

The question has often been asked whether the developments and results of these many initiatives were able to “stick.” Considering a quote from Machiavelli in which he proclaims It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has as the enemy, all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely luke warm defenders of those who would gain by the new.

It is a reasonable question to ask. The answer is yes, to varying degrees. The Coalition was consciously established to include a varied set of institutional types to include large research oriented institutions and non-PhD granting institutions, very large public institutions, and private institutions. There was, however, a common will to implement change to the undergraduate engineering educational enterprise, and thus what mattered most was the will of the faculty and administrative leaders to implement change irrespective of institutional structure or size. Many aspects of the programs, but not necessarily all, were implemented and institutionalized as part of a new mainstream by the partner institutions and, through broad interest and collaborations, disseminated and adopted by many other institutions nationally and internationally. New approaches to the engineering education enterprise continue along with new avenues to address being identified such as the cognitive issues not thought about in the days of E4 or the Coalitions. As appropriate these often build on the prior work of others. Consider, if you will, the evolution of the highly regarded Journal of Engineering Education, The International Journal of Engineering Education, the many presentations and publications of the ASEE Annual Meeting, The FIE Annual Meeting, Regional Meetings, and the many other conference and workshop venues that now exists nationally and internationally. The engineering education world is indeed changing including even establishments of departments of engineering education within colleges of engineering. Thus, consider a quote from Winston Churchill, albeit employed in addressing a very different subject, in which he remarked: “So little time, so much to do” and so it is perhaps appropriate to examine where we should be heading and what is yet to be done.

14.3 A LOOK TO THE FUTURE Hypothesizing about the future can be both interesting and provocative. Some elements of opportunity and challenge are becoming evident while others are conjecture to ponder and build upon with our engineering

278

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

creativity. Changes in the educational environment for a College of Engineering can be envisioned from at least two perspectives. One will be in the changes of the educational process for the engineering students, and the other will be in the College’s broader role within the University. Given the centrality of technology in everyday life of the general populace it is both an opportunity and an obligation for Colleges of Engineering to have a broader, and perhaps central, role in the education of all students across the university; not just engineering students. It is an opportunity to highlight the role of technology in the many facets of societal engagement as well as an economic engine. It is an opportunity to be accepted as an important part of a holistic education for all students. It is also an obligation to this broad student body and an obligation as well to our profession to have a more technologically aware populace. The latter is important to the governance and critical decisions of the twenty-first century. At Drexel this process has begun with a mandate from the Provost that each academic unit must provide a course related to its field that could be taken by any student in the university irrespective of major or prerequisites. Once such course, “introduction to entertainment engineering” provides a high-level systems view of such application areas as electrical engineering in the entertainment industry or in communication and social networking. While it is generally an anathema to engineering faculty to provide a “service” course, it is a wonderful opportunity to develop what some in an engineering college might refer to as a “soft” course. Nevertheless the fact that such a course is rapidly over subscribed is testament to its interest and need. With respect to our own engineering students, the educational program in the years ahead is clearly heading in the direction of incorporating more cross-institutional and global linkages. Global linkages will go far beyond study abroad programs that serve limited populations but, rather, linkages that will serve the large population of the entire student body. Important components that add to the holistic experience and excitement will be further integrated into the educational process. One early example was the Gateway Coalition’s supported “GlobeTech” [6] technology management simulation program. The primary learning tool was an Internet-based international jointventure negotiation simulation. The program familiarized engineering students with the real and very complex political, economic, social, financial, as well as technical issues influencing global technology decisions through international team communications. The need for understanding and working within a global environment will continue to increase from the perspective of both the global corporate enterprise and the global customer base with whom the engineering graduates will be engaged. Concurrent with the global interactions are associated issues of cultural understanding, interpersonal skills and teamwork development, entrepreneurship, business

A LOOK TO THE FUTURE

279

or management acumen, and a host of additional attributes that the twentyfirst century engineer should possess. Such aspects of the engineering education can be provided locally except that we cannot simply add more to the educational program without finding the means to incorporate these and other important issues within the basic framework. Creative use of new approaches and new tools to enable a more time and educationally efficient environment will slowly emerge. The tools will, for the most part, be information technology and electronic communication based. All will serve the broad purpose of enriching the educational experience of students generally (not just engineers) or the general public. Consider the possibilities of remote access and control of experimental equipment with video feedback and ultimately direct feedback of the senses as the student performs an operation remotely. Such remote access and control, while attempted in somewhat primitive state in the Gateway Coalition, is now readily possible with equipment that has Ethernet connectivity. While those resources will increase in time consider the future potential with sensory feedback of touch, pressure, and perhaps even smell. Such remote control and feedback capabilities will effectively provide the opportunity for a fully functioning baccalaureate engineering education program remotely by anyone with permitted access from anywhere in the world; not just the classroom experience but the experimental laboratories as well. It will permit a host of new approaches not heretofore available for the engineering educational system. Consider the possibilities of a classroom cloud with many participants geographically distributed with a teacher/moderator and content experts in engineering practice all with audio, video, and curricular content access within the cloud. Beyond that, consider, for example, computer based technically centric modules in which pop-up or drop-down menus are available to delve deeper into the social, historical, or economic relational topics of a technical matter. This can be the means by which the technical depth many are concerned with is retained while concurrently linking these other facets in context. The emerging professionals will then better understand how to function in a world of geographically dispersed facilities with teams of colleagues across many geographic boundaries. Equally important is the intellectual maturity and broader cultural understandings that will come from such integration and linkages. As high-speed high bandwidth connectivity becomes increasingly available to a broader population base for high-quality video as well as audio, consider the impact of such specialized web repositories as the structured and organized MIT Open Courseware or the many informal resources that become available through such social media venues as YouTube. These are mere beginnings of what can and will evolve. These forms of resources will impact how, where, and when people will undertake their studies and especially so when

280

SO MUCH ACCOMPLISHED: SO MUCH TO BE DONE

combined, for engineering students, with the capabilities of remote control of experimentation. A plethora of opportunities will evolve to make the undergraduate engineering educational programs more flexible allowing for technical strength where it is needed and expansiveness of meeting student career interests in a multitude of combinations and paths. The traditional academic structure as we now know it will change significantly, driven by student demand. Viewed as an opportunity rather than a threat consider the possibilities, for example, of a student interested in a nontechnically based career but wishes to have awareness and be technologically literate. Our tools and structure will make that possible without undue burden. Or consider, as an example, the inefficiency of students interested in learning the science, engineering, social/historical and ethical implications behind a given subject in depth having to do so through separate courses, each having its own time frame and often unlinked to the other. This will give way to much greater integration in a holistic experience to the benefit of both student and the institution. For the student the integration is not only a matter of time efficiency but also a matter of an improved educational experience in which the components are learned in context. If Colleges of Engineering establish the appropriate flexible means, students will increasingly wish to use the engineering education as a path to marketing, investment banking, business leadership, entrepreneurship, design engineering, cutting edge engineering research, or a host of many other challenging careers. They will want, and need, different sets of educational opportunities and paths while pursuing the baccalaureate degree. There are those who argue that a common core, or body of knowledge, is critical to the undergraduate educational experience. If so, that core must be defined as a minimal set without the expectation that all students will desire, or need, the same level of mathematical or physical sciences rigor. Providing the opportunity and encouragement for students to pursue other intellectually broadening combinations will be attractive to more students. The enabling structures will be many. Some combinations may suit those entering different aspects of engineering practice, some will be for those wishing to use the quantitative thinking developed as an engineering student for other nonengineering career paths, while still others will be for those pursuing careers at the cutting edge of engineering research. We must, and will, find ways to satisfy each of these career-building paths. In total the educational system will need to provide flexibility that recognizes multiple engineering career and personal intellectual interests as well as a citizenry versed in an understanding of technology. The beneficiaries will be the students, the general citizenry, and the engineering profession. It will, however, be a significant challenge to the engineering education community.

REFERENCES

281

REFERENCES 1. Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education, Report of the National Science Board Task Committee on Undergraduate Science and Engineering Education (H.A. Neal, chairman). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1986. 2. “Quality in Engineering Education,” Executive Summary of the Final Report of the ASEE Quality of Engineering Education Project, Engineering Education, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 16–24, 49–50, Oct 1986. 3. A National Action Agenda for Engineering Education, Report of the Task Force on a National Action Agenda for Engineering Education (E.E. David, chairman). Washington, D.C.: ASEE, 1987. 4. From Analysis to Action: Report of a Convocation, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., April 9–11, 1995. 5. J. Bordogna, E. Fromm and E.W. Ernst, “Engineering Education: Innovation through Integration.” ASEE Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 3–8, Jan 1993. 6. R. Jacoby, “The Globetech Simulation Project at the Cooper Union.” Gateway Engineering Education Coalition, 2010. Available: http://www.gatewaycoalition. org/includes/display_project.aspx?ID¼648&maincatid¼105&subcatid¼1024& thirdcatid¼0.

BIOSKETCHES DIRAN APELIAN

Diran Apelian is Howmet Professor of Engineering and Director of the Metal Processing Institute at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). He received his BS degree in metallurgical engineering from Drexel University in 1968 and his doctorate in materials science and engineering from MIT in 1972. He worked at Bethlehem Steel’s Homer Research Laboratories before joining Drexel University’s faculty in 1976. At Drexel he held various positions, including professor, head of the Department of Materials Engineering, associate dean of the College of Engineering and vice-provost of the University. He joined WPI in July 1990 as the Institute’s Provost. In 1996, he returned to the faculty and leads the activities of the Metal Processing Institute. Shaping Our World: Engineering Education for the 21st Century, First Edition. Edited by Gre´tar Tryggvason and Diran Apelian. Ó 2012 by The Materials, Metals, & Materials Society. Published 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

283

284

BIOSKETCHES

Apelian is credited with pioneering work in various areas of metal processing, aluminum alloy development, plasma deposition, spray casting/forming, and materials recovery and recycling. He is the recipient of many distinguished honors and awards—national and international; he has over 500 publications to his credit; and serves on several technical, corporate and editorial boards. During 2008/2009, he served as President of TMS. Apelian is a Fellow of TMS, ASM, and APMI; he is a member of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Armenian Academy of Sciences. DENNIS D. BERKEY

Dennis Berkey was appointed President and CEO of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 2004 following 30 years of service in higher education as a tenured faculty member and senior administrator at Boston University. He is an award winning teacher and the author of several mathematics textbooks. His published research is in applied mathematics, and his administrative posts have included department chair, dean of arts and sciences, and university provost. His academic degrees are all in mathematics (BA, Muskingum College, 1969; MA, Miami University, 1971; PhD, U. Cincinnati, 1974). Berkey enjoys active service to the City of Worcester and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He was called upon recently to lead the (successful) search for the Superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools, to serve on the Governor’s new task force on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and to testify before the Massachusetts legislature in support of proposed reform legislation concerning public education. Nationally, he is currently leading the site visiting team for the reaccreditation of Harvey Mudd College, a premier engineering college in the Claremont, CA, cluster.

CURTIS R. CARLSON

285

CURTIS R. CARLSON

Dr. Curtis R. Carlson is President and CEO of SRI International and Chairman of the Sarnoff Corporation, a wholly owned SRI subsidiary in Princeton, NJ. He is also honorary Chairman of the Madrid Research Institute in Spain. He wrote the book Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want with William Wilmot, published in 2006 by Random House. It was selected by BusinessWeek as one of its best business books of 2006. Carlson received his BS in physics from WPI as a member of Tau Beta Pi and was named in Who’s Who Among Students. His MS and PhD degrees are from Rutgers University. Carlson has published or presented numerous technical publications and holds fundamental patents in the fields of image quality and computer vision. In 2006, Carlson won the Otto Schade Prize for Display Performance and Image Quality from the Society for Information Display with Dr. Roger Cohen. He has received four honorary degrees. At Sarnoff, he started and helped lead the high-definition television (HDTV) program that, as part of the Grand Alliance, became the U.S. standard. In 1997, the team won an Emmy for outstanding technical achievement. In 2000, another team started by Carlson won an Emmy for a system to optimize satellite broadcast image quality. He has helped found more than 10 new companies. Carlson is widely sought as a speaker and thought leader on innovation and global competitiveness. He is a member of America’s National Council for Innovation and Entrepreneurship; serves as co-chairman of Singapore’s Scientific Advisory Board; is a founding member of the Innovation Leadership Council for the World Economic Forum; and served on President Obama’s task force for R&D. Carlson has been on numerous corporate and governmental boards, including Nuance Communications; Sensar Systems; the General Motors’ Science and Technology Advisory Board; the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; the Naval Research Laboratory Review Panel; the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board; and the Defense Science Board for biochemical defense.

286

BIOSKETCHES

DAVID DIBIASIO

David DiBiasio is Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering and Head of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). He received his BS, MS, and PhD degrees from Purdue University in 1972, 1977, and 1980 respectively. DiBiasio has worked for the DuPont Company in Nashville, TN. He has been on the faculty at WPI since 1980 where he has conducted bioreactor-engineering research, including co-chairing two international conferences: Biochemical Engineering VI and VII. His current interests are in educational research: the process of student learning, international engineering education, and educational assessment. He codeveloped a new sophomore year project-based spiral curriculum in Chemical Engineering at WPI, which was awarded the 2001 William Corcoran Award from Chemical Engineering Education. He served ASEE as the 2004 chair of the Chemical Engineering Division, is an ABET program evaluator and serves on the AIChE Education & Accreditation Committee for ABET. He has also served as Assessment Coordinator in WPI’s Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division and is Director of WPI’s Washington DC Project Center. He was recently elected secretary/treasurer of the new Education Division of AIChE, and in 2009 was awarded the rank of Fellow in the ASEE. MICHAEL J. DOLAN

Michael J. Dolan is senior Vice President of Exxon Mobil Corporation in Irving, TX. Mr. Dolan joined Mobil Oil Corporation in 1980 and over the next

ELI FROMM

287

13 years, he worked in a variety of engineering and managerial positions supporting Mobil’s worldwide refineries. He joined Mobil’s worldwide petrochemicals division in 1993 in Houston, TX. Mr. Dolan progressed through a variety of strategic planning and business management positions in the aromatics, olefins, and polyethylene businesses before becoming vice president and general manager for petrochemicals in the Americas in 1998. Following the Exxon and Mobil merger, in 2000 Mr. Dolan became the Middle East and Africa regional director of ExxonMobil Chemical Company located in Brussels, Belgium. In 2001, he moved to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where he served as executive vice president for ExxonMobil Saudi Arabia. He returned to the United States in 2003 as deputy to the president of ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company in Fairfax, Virginia. From September 2004, he was president of ExxonMobil Chemical Company and vice president of Exxon Mobil Corporation until his appointment as senior vice president of the Corporation in April 2008. Mr. Dolan is a Member of the Board of the U.S.–Saudi Arabian Business Council, the U.S.–China Business Council, and a former director of the American Petroleum Institute. He is on the Board of Trustees of Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), Worcester, MA. Mr. Dolan also served as director of the American Chemistry Council, the Society of Chemical Industry and the Sam Houston Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America. A native of Massachusetts, Mr. Dolan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering from WPI and a Master of Business Administration degree from Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ELI FROMM

Eli Fromm is the Roy A. Brothers University Professor, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Director of the Center for Educational Research, and Associate Dean for freshman programs in the College of Engineering of Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. He joined the Drexel University faculty in 1967 and has served in faculty and academic leadership positions including Vice President for Educational Research, Vice Provost for Research and

288

BIOSKETCHES

Graduate Studies, interim Dean of the College of Engineering, and interim Head of the Department of Biosciences. His many years of activities devoted to educational leadership and the engineering educational reform movements include principal investigator of the Drexel E4 project and principal investigator of the multi-institution Gateway Engineering Education Coalition. More recently he has turned his attention to the use of engineering as a contextual vehicle for math and science education in the K-12 community in an effort to influence the development of the technological workforce of the future. He is member of the National Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a Charter Fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), a Fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), and a Fellow of the International Engineering Consortium (IEC). He is the inaugural recipient of the Bernard M. Gordon Prize from the National Academy of Engineering for his significant contributions to engineering and technology education. He has received numerous other awards and honors from such organizations as the IEEE, ASEE, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the Smithsonian Institution, Drexel University, Thomas Jefferson University, and others. Dr. Fromm received a bachelor of science in electrical engineering in 1962 as well as his master’s in engineering in 1964 from Drexel University. In 1967, he earned his doctorate in bioengineering and physiology from the Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA. NIKOLAOS A. GATSONIS

Nikolaos A. Gatsonis received his undergraduate degree in physics at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Greece (1983), an MS in atmospheric science at the University of Michigan (1996), an MS (1987) and a PhD (1991) in the Aeronautics and Astronautics Department of MIT. From 1991 to 1993, he was a postdoctoral fellow at the Space Department of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. In 1994, he joined the Mechanical Engineering faculty at WPI where he is currently a professor. He served as the

MICHAEL A. GENNERT

289

Associate Head of Mechanical Engineering Department from 2007–2010 and he is the founding Director of WPI’s BS program in aerospace engineering. Gatsonis’ research interests are in modeling, simulation, and experimentation of gaseous and plasma flows. He has authored or coauthored over 80 journal and conference proceeding papers and supervised more than 25 postdoctoral, doctoral, and master’s students. He has an extensive record of industrial collaborations and received research support through numerous STTR and SBIR awards. He was an Associate Editor of the AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (2003–2006). He served on the AIAA Electric Propulsion Technical Committee (1998–2003) and the AIAA Space Science Technical Committee (1992–1996). He is currently a member of the Steering Committee for the Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space of The National Academies (2009–2010). He was the recipient of the WPI Trustees Award for Outstanding Research and Creative Scholarship (2004) and was the George I. Alden Professor in Engineering (2007–2010). MICHAEL A. GENNERT

Michael A. Gennert is Department Head of the Computer Science Department and director of the Robotics Engineering Program at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, where he is Associate Professor of Computer Science and Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He received the BS in Computer Science, BS in Electrical Engineering, and MS in Electrical Engineering in 1980 and the DSc in Electrical Engineering in 1987 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has worked at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, MA, the University of California/ Riverside, General Electric Ordnance Systems, Pittsfield, MA and PAR Technology Corporation, New Hartford, NY. Dr. Gennert’s research encompasses Computer Vision, Image Processing, Scientific Databases, and Programming Languages, with ongoing projects in biomedical image processing, robotics, and stereo and motion vision. He is

290

BIOSKETCHES

author or coauthor of over 100 papers. He led a team of WPI faculty in creating the WPI BS program in Robotics Engineering, the first undergraduate robotics degree program in the United States. He is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, American Society for Engineering Education, Sigma Xi, Upsilon Pi Epsilon, National Defense Industrial Association Robotics Division, and the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council Robotics Cluster and a Senior Member of the Association for Computing Machinery. ARTHUR C. HEINRICHER

Arthur Heinricher joined the Mathematical Sciences faculty at WPI in 1992, served as the associate dean for the First Year from 2007 through 2009, and became dean of undergraduate studies at WPI in November 2008. His main responsibility as associate dean for the First Year was the development of WPI’s Great Problems Seminars engaging First Year students with interdisciplinary projects tied to problems of current, global importance. Heinricher earned a BS in applied mathematics from the University of Missouri-St. Louis and a PhD in mathematics from Carnegie Mellon. As a member of the Mathematical Sciences Department at WPI, he helped found and served as director for the Center for Industrial Mathematics and Statistics. As a project advisor, he has worked with more than 100 undergraduates on more than 30 different mathematics projects with business and industry. He helped organize WPI’s Research Experience for undergraduates in industrial mathematics and statistics from 1998 through 2007. Heinricher co-organized WPI’s Mathematics in Industry Institutes for High School Teachers, which helped teachers develop industrial math projects accessible to high school students. He also worked the mathematicians at Boston University, UMassLowell, and the Educational Development Center to develop the Mathematics Research Expos for five Boston-area school districts. More than 8000 middle and high school students completed a mathematics research project in the first 5 years of the program.

NATALIE A. MELLO

291

FRED J. LOOFT

Fred Looft is Professor and Head of Electrical and Computer Engineering at WPI. He received all of his degrees in electrical engineering while at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI. After graduation in 1979, he accepted a position with Bell Laboratories in Andover, MA. Subsequently, he joined the EE (now ECE) faculty at WPI where he has been for the past 30 years. Prof. Looft has been intimately involved in advising both on- and off-campus third and fourth year projects. In particular he has advised third year projects in Washington, DC; London, England; Venice, Italy; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Windhoek, Namibia; Copenhagen, Denmark. Similarly, he advised nearly 250 students as part of the WPI Goddard Space Flight Center projects program over an 8-year period between 1998 and 2006. Most recently, he has been involved in significant project advising and development opportunities for the new Robotics Engineering program at WPI. Prof. Looft’s professional interests include computer architecture and design, graduate systems engineering program capstone projects, and all aspects of undergraduate projects-based education and learning.

NATALIE A. MELLO

Natalie Mello is the Director of Global Operations in the Interdisciplinary and Global Studies Division at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). She

292

BIOSKETCHES

oversees all aspects of the administration and management of WPI’s global perspective program, including student recruitment, risk management, health and safety issues, participant orientation and faculty development and training. These programs exist in the United States, Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia, Africa, and the South Pacific and involve more than 600 participants yearly. Mello has also served as an on-site advisor for WPI students as they have completed degree required projects in Venice, Italy, San Jose´, Costa Rica, and Washington, DC. She holds a BA in Art from Connecticut College, a Graduate Certificate in Teaching English as a Second Language and a Master of Liberal Arts from Clark University. Mello is involved with education abroad professional organizations particularly in the area of risk management and has become recognized as developing a model for responsible risk management for off-campus experiences. She was awarded the NAFSA: Association of International Educators’ Lily von Klemperer Award in May 2010. And in November 2010, Natalie was the recipient of NAFSA: Association of International Educators Region XI’s Sally M. Heym. This award honors a professional who has made outstanding contributions to the field of international education. SVETLANA NIKITINA

Svetlana Nikitina is an Assistant Professor of English in the WPI’s Humanities and Arts Department. Her professional interests lie in three main areas: new forms of narrative emerging in our multimedia age, comparative and environmental literature, and interdisciplinary pedagogy. She teaches a variety of writing and literature courses from The Elements of Writing, to Moral Issues in the Modern Novel and The American Literature and the Environment. With Diran Apelian, she coteaches The Grand Challenges: Sustainable Development for the twenty-first century seminar and has been involved with the First Year Experience program at WPI from its inception. In her teaching, she draws upon different disciplines and to make broad

KATHY A. NOTARIANNI

293

parallels between epistemologies and cultures as they raise important questions about moral choices, human relationship with environment and with technology. Prior to coming to WPI, S. Nikitina served as a senior researcher on the nationwide study of interdisciplinary education conducted by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, evaluating interdisciplinary curricula and learning experiences at the collegiate and professional levels. She received a PhD in Comparative Literature from Moscow University and she holds EdM in Human Development and Psychology from Harvard University. She is a member of the Modern Language Association, Association for Integrative Studies, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Association for the Study of Literature and the Environment, and a trustee of the Museum of Russian Icons. KATHY A. NOTARIANNI

Kathy A. Notarianni is the Head of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Kathy is a licensed professional engineer with four engineering degrees, including a PhD from Carnegie Mellon University. She has significantly enhanced the U.S. National Fire Codes, been elected to the grade of fellow in her professional society. Prior to joining WPI, Notarianni managed a group of scientists and engineers in a technical program of integrated performance assessment and risk at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, MD. On the international stage, Dr. Kathy Notarianni is well known and has been invited to speak or conduct research in over a dozen countries including England, Sweden, Iceland, and Japan. Beyond her work in academic and professional circles, Kathy devotes a great deal of her time to serving others. The National Academy of Engineering features her in their “Engineer Girl” program, which provides high school girls the opportunity to explore engineering careers by profiling successful female

294

BIOSKETCHES

engineers. Kathy conducts workshops and symposiums for middle and high school girls to introduce them to engineering through hands-on activities. In the local community, she leads a Girl Scout troop and teaches CCD. She also has hosted numerous fundraisers at her house to provide tens of thousands of meals for the Worcester Food Bank. JOHN A. ORR

John A. Orr is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute and served as Provost of WPI from 2007 through 2010. Prior to this he held the position of Dean of Undergraduate Studies. In these roles Dr. Orr participated in substantial growth in the undergraduate and graduate activities at WPI. During this time innovative new undergraduate and graduate majors, including Robotics Engineering and Learning Sciences, were added. Dr. Orr joined the faculty of WPI in 1977 and served as head of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department from 1988 to 2003. He received the BS and PhD degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and the MS degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University. Dr. Orr began his professional career at Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, NJ. At WPI Dr. Orr’s research interests span several aspects of digital signal processing. Recent work is in the area of positioning systems, particularly precision personnel tracking in the indoor environment, leading to numerous publications and one patent on an algorithm for optimal positioning in a high multipath environment. His other professional interest is in the area of engineering education where he has led the development of several innovative programs including an immersive first-year experience in the “great problems” of engineering and a graduate level interdisciplinary program in computer networking. He is past president of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Heads’ Association, and a past member of the Board of Governors of Eta Kappa Nu, and of the Board of Directors of IEC. Dr. Orr is a member of the ABET

YIMING (KEVIN) RONG

295

Engineering Accreditation Commission. He is a Fellow of the IEEE and of the American Society for Engineering Education. YIMING (KEVIN) RONG

Kevin Rong is the John W. Higgins Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Associate Director of Manufacturing and Materials Engineering Program, and the Director of Computer-Aided Manufacturing Laboratory (CAM Lab.) at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). He is also the coordinator of Robotics Concentration of ME BS degree program and the director of WPI-China Exchange Program of Senior Project Center. Dr. Rong received a BS degree in mechanical engineering from Harbin University of Science and Technology, China, in 1981; an MS degree in manufacturing engineering from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 1984; an MS degree in industrial engineering from University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI in 1987; and a PhD in mechanical engineering from University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, in 1989. Dr. Rong worked as a faculty member at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale for 8 years before joining WPI in 1998. Dr. Rong’s research area is computer-aided manufacturing, including manufacturing systems, machining and heat treatment processes, and computer-aided fixture design (CAFD). The research on CAFD has been recognized nationally and internationally. He is the principal investigator of many research projects funded by NSF, DOE, Air Force, SME, and several major manufacturing companies. Dr. Rong is a fellow of ASME and a member of SME, ASM, and ASEE. He has published two books on CAFD and many technical papers in journals and conference proceedings.

296

BIOSKETCHES

JEROME (JERRY) J. SCHAUFELD

Mr. Schaufeld’s wealth of experience in entrepreneurship, operations and general management of technology-based companies ranges from his current role as professor of Entrepreneurship at WPI to an assignment as a commercialization consultant at Children’s Hospital in Boston. He is co-PI of a Kern Foundation grant to develop curriculum in areas of innovation and entrepreneurship and commercialization of technology. He is a consultant to the Swiss government in the area of early stage ventures and is coauthoring a text in innovation and entrepreneurship with a Swiss colleague. He served as Director of the RI Slater Fund, past President and CEO of Mass Ventures and has a “hands-on” track record in several early stage companies that ranges from functional to board level advisory roles. He is a member of the Launch Pad Angel Group in Wellesley and cofounder of the Cherrystone Angels in Rhode Island. In addition, he is a charter member of the national Angel Capital Association (ACA), and a founder/participant in the regional NE Angels ACA group. Mr. Schaufeld was a founder and the first Chairman of the MIT Enterprise Forum, which is a resource group for early stage companies with global outreach. He also founded the Incus Group, which is a CEO level business acquisition and resource organization. With a graduate engineering degree, research experience at MIT, a MBA, professional engineer’s license (MA), and Professional Board Director’s Certification; Jerry has a distinguished technical and operations savvy managerial career. His current interest and research is in the area of improving the probability of success in early stage, innovative, technology based ventures. This interest began while he was a Special Student at the MIT Sloan School where his studies focused on the areas of the Management of R&D, Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship.

DAVID SPANAGEL

297

RICHARD D. SISSON, JR.

Richard D. Sisson, Jr. is currently the Dean of Graduate Studies, the George F. Fuller Professor of Mechanical Engineering and the Director of Manufacturing and Materials Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He received his BS in metallurgical engineering fromVirginia Polytechnic Institute in 1969, an MSin metallurgical engineering from Purdue University in 1971 and a PhD. in materials science and engineering from Purdue University in 1975. Dr. Sisson’s teaching and research has focused on the applications of thermodynamics and kinetics to materials processing and degradation phenomena in metals and ceramics. He has more than 200 publications and more than 180 technical presentations on topics ranging from heat treating and quenching of steels and aluminum alloys to the synthesis of nanocrystalline ceramics to hydrogen embrittlement of high strength steels to environmental issues in materials processing. Sisson became a Fellow of ASM International in 1993 and an ASM International Trustee in 2002. He was the Heat Treating Society President from 2007 to 2009. Dr. Sisson received the WPI Trustee’s Award as Teacher of the Year in 1987. He was inducted into the Virginia Tech College of Engineering, Academy of Engineering Excellence 2006, and was awarded the inaugural WPI, Chairman’s Exemplary Faculty Prize in 2007. DAVID SPANAGEL

David Spanagel is an Assistant Professor of History in the Department of Humanities and Arts at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). He

298

BIOSKETCHES

originally joined the WPI faculty in 2005 as an adjunct professor, and has consistently been active as a curriculum innovator not only by overhauling and updating the history of science and technology domain of his department’s course offerings but also by pioneering new approaches for teaching the inquiry seminar capstone experience for the new Humanities and Arts requirement, and by codeveloping the longest running Great Problems Seminar for the new First Year Experience. After obtaining a doctorate in the history of science, he engaged in a series of full-time teaching positions at MIT, Emerson College, and Harvard University. He is member of the American Historical Association, the Forum on the History of Science in America, the History of Earth Sciences Society, the History of Science Society, and the Society for the History of the Early American Republic. Spanagel received a bachelor of arts in mathematics and American studies in 1983 from Oberlin College, his master’s in education in 1984 from the University of Rochester, and in 1996 he earned his doctorate in the history of science from Harvard University. GRÉTAR TRYGGVASON

Gretar Tryggvason is the Viola D. Hank Professor of aerospace and mechanical engineering at the University of Notre Dame. He received his PhD from Brown University in 1985 and was on the faculty of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor until 2000 when he moved to the Worcester Polytechnic Institute as the head of the department of mechanical engineering. He moved to the University of Notre Dame in 2010. Professor Tryggvason is well known for his contributions to computational fluid dynamics, particularly the development of methods for multiphase flows and for direct numerical simulations of such flows. His has published over 100 journal papers, given a large number of invited presentations and supervised the research of over 20 doctoral students. His research has been funded by a number of federal agencies as well as corporations. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and ASME and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Computational Physics.

CHARLES M. VEST

299

RICHARD F. VAZ

Richard F. Vaz received the PhD in electrical engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), specializing in signal analysis and machine vision. He held systems and design engineering positions with the Raytheon Company, GenRad Inc., and the MITRE Corporation before joining the WPI Electrical and Computer Engineering faculty in 1987. Rick is currently Dean of Interdisciplinary and Global Studies at WPI, with oversight of WPI’s worldwide network of 26 project centers and an academic unit focusing on local and regional sustainability. His teaching and research interests include service and experiential learning, engineering design and appropriate technology, and internationalizing engineering education. He has developed and advised hundreds of student research projects in the Americas, Africa, Australia, and Asia. Rick has published over 40 papers in peer-reviewed forums and is the recipient of numerous teaching and advising awards including the WPI Trustees’ Awards for outstanding teaching and for outstanding advising. Since 2004 he has served as a Senior Science Fellow of the Association of American Colleges and Universities. CHARLES M. VEST

Charles M. Vest is President of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and President Emeritus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A professor

300

BIOSKETCHES

of mechanical engineering at MIT and formerly at the University of Michigan, he served on the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology from 1994 to 2008, and chaired the President’s Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station and the Secretary of Energy’s Task force on the Future of Science at DOE. He was a member of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. He was vice chair of the U.S. Council on Competitiveness for 7 years, has served on the boards of DuPont and IBM, and was awarded the 2006 National Medal of Technology. He is the author of a book on holographic interferometry and two books on higher education. Constant themes throughout his career have included the quality and diversity of the U.S. engineering workforce; sustained excellence of U.S. higher education; global openness to the flow of people, education, and ideas; university–government–industry partnership; and the innovative capacity of the United States. KRISTIN WOBBE

Kristin Wobbe is the John C. Metzger Associate Professor, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Head of the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department and Associate Dean for the First Year at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. She has been a member of the WPI faculty since 1995. Her research originally focused on the interactions between pathogens and their host organisms, working on the strategies developed by pathogens to evade host defense mechanisms. She has also participated in research on the study of the plant-based production of artemisinin, a potent antimalarial treatment in short supply. She is the recipient of the Romeo L. Moruzzi Young Faculty Award for Innovation in Undergraduate Education, and a founding instructor in the Great Problems Seminars program. Dr. Wobbe received her BA in chemistry from St. Olaf College and a PhD. in biochemistry from Harvard University. She conducted postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, and Rutgers University as the recipient of an NSF Plant Molecular Biology Fellowship.