1 / 8

This semester we have piloted a new approach to the IPRO review committee. We have received constructive feedback that w

This semester we have piloted a new approach to the IPRO review committee. We have received constructive feedback that we will act on: . IPRO will continue to evolve under the direction of Chris White but there are near term changes we plan to implement for Fall of 2013:.

riona
Download Presentation

This semester we have piloted a new approach to the IPRO review committee. We have received constructive feedback that w

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. This semester we have piloted a new approach to the IPRO review committee. We have received constructive feedback that we will act on:

  2. IPRO will continue to evolve under the direction of Chris White but there are near term changes we plan to implement for Fall of 2013: • “Right size” deliverable requirements for IPRO teams (more freedom for faculty members to make deliverables relevant to the learning goals and projects). • Develop an IPRO handbook that shares best practices and modular lessons (e.g. best practices for resolving conflict, facilitating a team building session, coaching teams, managing diversity, developing leadership competency, and so on). • Implement faculty controlled budgeting. • Pilot class clustering for registration. The following two slides outline this approach. • Comply with IIT’s NDA / IP policies • Create a “one page” description of what makes a good IPRO class / project (see appendix of this document)

  3. The existing process of proposal development, review, and scheduling results in sub-optimal conditions for students, faculty, and administration • Creates issues that degrade student experience and jeopardized faculty autonomy: • Insufficient time for dean / associate dean review of proposals. • Insufficient time for committee review. • Insufficient time for proposal iteration. • Sponsors unwilling to commit to projects so far in the future. • Students sign up for most projects based on time offered, not topic. • Required to approve / not approve continuations of projects at their mid point – too early to tell if they will accomplish their goals • IPRO staff spends significant time after registration moving students into truly inter-disciplinary teams

  4. “Clustering” of classes, based on existing, proven models, provides time for committee / dean review and faculty iteration • Clusters provide: • A new way to register for IPRO classes: students pick a topic area they are interested in (e.g. urban farming) and a time that works for their schedule. During the first week of class they select the specific project they want to work on (the college of architecture and the Institute of Design also offer this type of registration). • More time to review and refine proposals: by delaying the introduction of specific projects until the class starts, refining the proposals. • More faculty interaction opportunities: classes with similar themes and topics will meet at the same time and in proximity. This will allow faculty with similar interests to meet and share ideas / resources and best practices. • Clusters do NOT: • Change the learning goals of an IPRO class:we will still use the same standards for each project, this is simply a new way to register. • Prevent faculty from proposing projects: Not all classes will fit into a cluster. Faculty are encouraged to propose topics and projects that are of interest to them. We will work with full time faculty to ensure that their projects get the right students / exposure. • Prevent students from working on projects they want to work on: students with a specific passion or those who want to work with a specific faculty member will be accommodated.

  5. Class clusters will benefit students and faculty and take advantage of existing momentum and practices • Greater opportunity to improve team and individual student effectiveness and consistent level of satisfaction: • learning special methods and contextual information associated with a themed area • learning from each other in a workshop environment • Achieving greater consistency, performance and satisfaction across clustered teams with common faculty coaching • Right-sizing teams to match the scope of work for various projects. • In reality, IPRO teams have been growing bigger: so students have been working in smaller workgroups on various topics within a traditional IPRO team or in a competitive mode.

  6. Appendix: IPRO on one page (OK, it fits on one page in portrait orientation, but in this presentation it has been distributed across three pages). • What makes a good IPRO project proposal? • Open-ended problem: The symptoms of the problem are clear (we can measure its impact on people and organizations), but the root cause(s) have not been identified. • No solution in mind: The project requires exploring multiple solutions. • Stakeholder access: It is possible to access and interact with the stakeholders. Students should be able to interact with the people affected by the problem and those responsible for implementing the solution. • Technical AND social complexity: The project involves both technical issues (can be resolved through technology) and social issues (can be resolved through communications, relationships, and learning).

  7. Appendix: IPRO on one page (OK, it fits on one page in portrait orientation, but in this presentation it has been distributed across three pages). • What should students learn during an IPRO project? • Teamwork: How to be an effective member of an interdisciplinary team, adding the expertise of your discipline and working on topics broader than your major. • Communication: How to effectively communicate the technical and non-technical aspects of a project to key stakeholders. • Logically correct reasoning: The ability to generate a hypothesis using inductive logic (leveraging design methods), and then prove/disprove it using deductive logic (leveraging prototyping and analytical thinking). • Project management: Deliver a desired, planned outcome with time and resource constraints. • Ethics: How to act ethically when conducting research, working in teams, and creating solutions.

  8. Appendix: IPRO on one page (OK, it fits on one page in portrait orientation, but in this presentation it has been distributed across three pages). • What is the desired outcome of the project? • Students will develop a solution to the problem that is: • Desirable: solves a key problem and creates value for a group of stakeholders / customers / users. • Viable: the solution is economically sustainable over time. • Feasible: the solution is achievable through existing technology, best demonstrated through working prototype.

More Related