Presentation Preview

1. Preparing the Engineer of 2020Lisa R. Lattuca and Patrick T. TerenziniProject DirectorsPresentation to the National Academy of Engineering Convocation of the Professional Engineering SocietiesMay 7, 2007Washington, D.C.

2. Presentation Preview • Origins of the NSF-funded “E2020” studies • Overview of NAE’s The Engineer of 2020 Reports • An outline of the two studies • How the two studies are distinct but complementary • A glimpse at what we’re learning already • What we hope YOU can provide: Questions, observations, ideas, suggestions, advice, resources or people in your societies -- anything that will help us get it right.

3. Origins of the “E2020” Studies Involvement of the Penn State Center for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE) in engineering education: 1990-2000: Responsible for evaluation in the ECSEL, one of the NSF-funded Engineering Education Coalitions 2002-2006: Completed ABET-sponsored, 40-institution study of the impact of the new outcomes-based accreditation criteria (EC2000).

4. The Cast of Characters Funding: The National Science Foundation Division of Engineering Education and Centers Divisionof Undergraduate Education The E2020 Research Group: Penn State:Thomas A. Litzinger, Professor of Mechanical Engineering Gül E. Kremer, Ass’t. Professor, Engineering Design; Industrial Engineering City College :Ardie D. Walser, Dean of Undergrad Studies & Professor of Electrical Engineering of NYLatif M. Jiji, Herbert G. Kayser Professor of Mechanical Engineering Montana State: Sara Codd, Assistant Professor of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Univ. of Missouri: Rose M. Marra, Associate Professor, Learning Technologies Northwestern: Ann F. McKenna, Research Ass’t. Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Director of Educational Improvement Lois C. Trautvetter, Ass’t. Professor & Assoc. Director, Higher Education, Administration, and Policy Montana State:Betsy Palmer, Assistant Professor of Education

5. National Advisory Board Members Alice M. AgoginoRoscoe and Elizabeth Hughes Professor of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of California at Berkeley Norman L. FortenberryDirector, Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering EducationNational Academy of Engineering Mario J. GonzalezSouthwestern Bell Foundation Endowed Professor in Electrical Engineering, Emeritus The University of Texas at Austin Linda Serra HagedornDepartment Chair and Professor, Educational Administration & PolicyUniversity of Florida Wayne C. JohnsonVice President, University Relations WorldwideHewlett-Packard Company Albert L. McHenryVice President, Exec. Vice Provost, & Professor, Electronics & Engineering TechnologyArizona State University Polytechnic Sheri D. SheppardProfessor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford UniversitySenior Scholar, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching David N. Wormley Dean of the College of Engineering & Professor of Mechanical Engineering The Pennsylvania State University

6. The Engineer of 2020 Reportsin a Nutshell A vision of the contexts for engineering in 2020: Technological (e.g., bio-tech, digital systems, computer systems/tools, sustainable technology, interdisciplinarity) Societal, Global, and Professional (e.g., social, political & economic, diversity, multi-disciplinarity, global markets & contexts, interaction of engineering and public policy) Attributes of the Engineer of 2020: • Strong analytical skills • Practical ingenuity • Creativity • Communication competencies (oral, written, and cultural) • Business, management, and leadership skills • High ethical standards and professionalism • Agility, resilience, flexibility

7. The E2020 Research Projects Two studies linked by two shared questions: • What’s needed to produce the engineer of 2020? • What’s needed to diversify engineering education now and the profession in the future?

8. Organizational Context Individual Student Experiences Organizational Structures, Policies, and Practices Classroom Experiences Academic and Co-Curricular Programs, Policies, and Practices Out-of-class Experiences Curricular Experiences Faculty Culture The College Experience Peer Environment Student Precollege Characteristics & Experiences Sociodemographic traits Academic preparation and performance Personal and social experiences E2020 Outcomes Particularly: Problem-solving Interdisciplinary Competence Contextual Competence (Terenzini and Reason, 2005)

9. Prototype to Production (P2P): Conditions and Processes forEducating the Engineer of 2020 • Assess alignment of current program goals, curricula, and instruction and the attributes of NAE’s Engineer of 2020. 2. Understand how students develop the knowledge, technical, and professional skills of the engineer of 2020. 3. Understand how students decide to become engineers and perceive the profession. 4. Illuminate the experiences of women, low-income, and minority students in their engineering programs. 5. Identify the program and policy levers to produce the engineer of 2020 and to diversify the profession.

10. Prototyping the Engineer of 2020: A 360-degree Study of Effective Education (P360) Overarching Goal: Identify the organizational, curricular, instructional, and cultural factors that produce graduates who look like the engineer of 2020 and attract under-represented students. Three Focal E2020 Learning Outcomes: • Problem-solving skills • Contextual competence • Interdisciplinary competence Strategy: Identify engineering schools currently out-performing others in: • producing graduates who closely resemble the engineer of 2020, • attracting and graduating under-represented students.

11. P2P: Prototype to Production (2006-2009) Phase I: Instrument Development and Pilot Testing Phase II: Pilot Testing, Sampling, Recruitment of Institutions Phase III: National Survey Administration P360: Prototyping the Engineer of 2020 (2006-2010) Phase I: Data Mining and Case Study Site Identification Phase II: Case Study Research (6) Phase III: Validate Findings through National Study of Engineering Education Phase IV: Analyses across cases and survey findings. Activities and Linkages

12. Current (Phase 1) Activities P2P: Instrument Development • Site visits to City College, Penn State, Penn State Altoona, Hostos and Borough of Manhattan Community Colleges • Interview • faculty in engineering, math, and science, and • administrators of student support services and special programs. • Identify potential survey items. P360: Data Mining and Planning • Use EC2000 Study data to: • refine and test ideas emerging from P2P interviews, • identify 6-8 high performing institutions for case studies. • Vet selections with National Advisory Board and others in summer of 2007.

13. What Are We Learning? 1. Academic Pathways • Families play a vital role, both positive and negative. • For working students, their work during college can: • Enhance learning (when the work engineering-related), or • Impede learning, when it (a) siphons time away from studies, or (b) prevents participation in out-of-class learning opportunities. • Curricular alignment between 2- and 4-year institutions opens doors. • Summer bridge and similar programs may aid recruitment and retention of under-represented students. • Community college students are highly heterogeneous. Transfer students differ from “native” students in their: • personal characteristics and experiences before college, and • experiences in engineering programs, • but may “catch-up”intheir level of skill development by end of their academic program.

14. What Are We Learning? 2. Faculty Roles Curricular Stewardship • Periodic review and assessment • Alignment of 2- and 4-year curricula • Infusion of key content and skills across courses and years Teaching and Mentoring • Dramatic differences in perceptions of roles between 2- and 4-year faculty • Industry experience influences approaches to teaching • Greater emphasis on application • More hands-on activities and demonstrations

15. What Are We Learning? 3. Promoting E2020 Attributes • Faculty attach varying levels of importance to globalization and leadership skills, and whether we can teach creativity. • Students lack understanding of the profession before – and even during – college. • Faculty don’t always convey the excitement of engineering practice. • Greater emphasis needed on applications. • Internships and Co-op Ed may be effective, but are not widespread. • Short-term international experiences may promote: • engineering skills, and • cultural competence. • Both peer and faculty interactions can build skills and professionalism (e.g., undergrad research, multi-year design teams). • Self-reflection and complex decision making are critical skills.

16. What it means for Professional Societies? Professional Societies can support • Student chapters at community colleges • Industry collaboration in internships and/or Co-op programs for talented, but disadvantaged students • High school programs to identify and alert well-prepared but disadvantaged students to various paths into engineering • Funding for 2- and 4-year curricular collaborations and training for K-12 and community college teachers. • Community college programs that bring disadvantaged students up-to-speed in math and sciences • Scholarships for bridge programs to provide access to high school students who are capable, but not financially able

17. Implications for Professional Societies? Other possibilities? • Participate in the interpretation of study findings • Contribute to the national dialogue (through society meetings, newsletters, etc.) • Facilitate and support development of industry-university collaborations • Other ideas?

18. More Information? Lisa Lattuca Lattuca@psu.edu (814) 865-9754 Pat Terenzini Terenzini@psu.edu (814) 865-9755 For updates: http://www.ed.psu.edu/cshe/e2020/

19. Prototyping and Producing of the Engineer of 2020Lisa R. Lattuca and Patrick T. TerenziniProject DirectorsPresentation to the National Academy of Engineering Convocation of the Professional Engineering SocietiesMay 7, 2007Washington, D.C.