Mohammad Noori mohammad.noori@gmail

1. Engineering Grand Challenges: Why We Need a New “WPI Plan” for Engineering Education Mohammad Noori mohammad.noori@gmail.com Mohammad Noori (http://mohammad-noori.com) IUCEE 2012-13 Virtual Academy, Nov. 6 & 12, 2012

2. Changing Role of Engineers and the Need to Reform Engineering Curriculum • Some of the Major Studies Published 2003-2008: • NAE, 2004, The Engineer of 2020 • NAE, 2005, Educating the Engineer of 2020 • NAE, 2008, Changing the Conversation • NSF, 2007, The 5XME Workshop: Transforming ME Education and Research • ASME, 2008 Global Summit on the Future of Mechanical Engineering • Duderstadt, 2008, Engineering for a Changing World • ASCE, 2008, Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century • Carnegie Foundation 2008, “Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field” • ASEE 2011, “Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education” • ASME 2012, Vision 2030: Creating the future of Mechanical Engineering

3. Grand Challenges- Background • In the 20th Century, engineering recorded its grandest accomplishments. 2003- the book A Century of Innovation: Twenty Engineering Achievements That Transformed Our Lives, published through a project initiated by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). 1. Electrification 2. Automobile 3. Airplane 4. Water Supply and Distribution 5. Electronics 6. Radio and Television 7. Agricultural Mechanization 8. Computers 9. Telephone 10. Air Conditioning & Refrigeration 11. Highways 12. Spacecraft 13. Internet 14. Imaging 15. Household Appliances 16. Health Technologies 17. Petroleum/Petrochemical Technologies 18. Laser and Fiber Optics 19. Nuclear Technologies 20. High-performance Materials

4. New Frontiers forEngineering in the 21st Century • In the 21st Century Engineering is faced with New • Frontiers. Our World is Changing • 20th century: • Stovepipes • Scientists discovered. • Engineers created. • Doctors healed. • 21st Century: • Science, Engineering, • and Medicine are: • Totally interdependent. • Blending together in new ways.

5. New Context for Engineering Breakthroughs in technology Demographics Global Challenges Economic/societal forces

6. New Context for Engineering • Breakthroughs in Technology: Sustainable Technology Microelectronics/ telecommunications Nanotechnology Biotechnology/ Nano-medicine Logistics Photonics/optics Manufacturing

7. New Context for Engineering • Breakthroughs in Technology: Macro Energy Environment Health Care Manufacturing Communications Logistics Bio Info Nano Bio-based materials Biomemetics Personalized, Predictive Medicine Synthetic Biology Biofuels Etc. Smaller and Smaller Faster and Faster More and More Complex • The payoffs will come from bridging these frontiers. • Our students must be prepared to do this. • Frontiers and synergies (natural and socialsciences) • must be reflected in the university education.

8. New Context for Engineering Demographics Global Challenges are a New Reality • 8 billion people; a 25% increase since 2000. • Balance tipped toward urbanization and “Mega Cities”. • By 2007, for the 1st time, majority of population lived in cities • By the end of 2010, more than 59 cities with population of • more than 5 million; 50% increase since 2001 • Challenges: Environmental issues, congestion, delivery • systems (water, electric power, sanitation, etc.) For instance, in • 2007, congestion in American populated cities caused: travel 4.2B • hours more, and an extra 2.8B gallons of fuel---a total congestion • cost of $87.2B (and the avg. cost of gas was $2.78).

9. New Context for Engineering Demographics Global Challenges are a New Reality • Youth “bulge” in underdeveloped nations while • developed nations age. • If the world condensed to 100 people: • 56 in Asia • 7 in Eastern Europe/Russia • 16 in Africa • 4 in the United States

10. New Context for Engineering • Challenges: • Fresh water shortages • Aging infrastructure • Energy demands • Global warming • New diseases • Security

11. Pipelines: 2 million miles of natural gas lines in U.S. Bridges: More than 600,000 in U.S. Wind Turbines: 21,000 MW capacity in the U.S. CommercialAircraft: 9,000 in use in U.S. Civil and Mechanical Infrastructure

12. Motivation for SHM R/D in Infrastructure • The emerging storm necessitates immediate attention: • Aging infrastructure systems • Exposure to natural hazards • Population growth in urban centers • Need for more sustainable practices • At stake- the economic prosperity of the nation: • Resilient infrastructure renders more competition • Need collaboration with other countries and sharingpractices Nation is facing “baby-boomer” infrastructure problem with many systems approaching the end of intended design lives (~50 years) Japan Tohoku Earthquake (March 2011) recent reminder of the destruction possible during natural hazard events Densification translates to increased demand on infrastructure and renders responses to more complex catastrophes

13. New Context for Engineering • Economic/Societal/Global Forces: • High speed communications /Internet • Terrorist attacks; wars • Sustained investment in higher education in countries like China, India • Population is more diverse • Growing imperative for environmental • sustainability • Increasing focus on security, privacy, • and safety

14. New Context for Engineering • Social/cultural/political forces will shape and affect the success of technological innovation. • 2003-07 – A series of reports, workshops, … organized by the NAE to identify the most important engineering challenges in the 21st Century.

15. Grand Challenges- Identification • January 10, 2007 - the NAE launched a Website to receive ideas from around the world: What are the grand challenges for engineering in the next one hundred years?.People from more than 40 countries responded.  NAE collected this impressive body of ideas. • February 2008 - NAE convened an international panel of highly accomplished experts to review the global responses and to identify several extremely challenging and important themes; deemed to be doable in the next few decades. • Panel proposed/selected14 challenges. They chose opportunities that were achievable and would help people and the planet thrive. • Over 50 subject-matter experts were invited to review the Panel's recommendations. NAE also received world-wide input from prominent engineers and scientists and the general public.

16. The Engineering Grand Challenges (Unveiled February 15, 2008) Make solar energy economical Manage the nitrogen cycle Develop carbon sequestration methods Provide energy from fusion Provide access to clean water Restore and improve urban infrastructure Advance health informatics Engineer better medicines Reverse-engineer the brain Prevent nuclear terror Secure cyberspace Enhance virtual reality Advance personalized learning Engineer the tools of scientific discovery

17. The Engineering Grand Challenges (Unveiled February 15, 2008) • The Challenges represent four broad realms of concern: • Sustainability of civilization • & the planet • Make Solar Energy Economical • Provide Energy from Fusion • Develop Carbon Sequestration Methods • Manage the Nitrogen Cycle • Provide Access to Clean Water • Threats to personal and • public Health • Engineer Better Medicines • Advance Health Informatics • Vulnerability to pandemic • diseases, violence, natural disasters • Secure Cyberspace • Prevent Nuclear Terror • Restore and Improve Urban Infrastructure • Products/processes that enhance • the Joy of Living • Reverse Engineer the Brain • Enhance Virtual Reality • Advance Personalized Learning • Engineer the Tools of Scientific Discovery

18. Why Are They Important? • Are vital for human survival and will make us more secure against natural and human threats. • Public will understand and appreciate the impact of engineering on socio-cultural systems, and will recognize engineering’s ability to address the world’s complex and changing challenges. • Will improve quality of life; what engineering is all about. • Larger context for engineering and technology.

19. Implications for Engineering Education • Engineering is pivotal to meet the 21st Century challenges. • Engineering solutions must be designed by considering the governmental, institutional, political, economical, andsocial barriers. • Grand Challenges are Global , require a multi-disciplinarysolution and a new breed of engineers Grand Challenges require a holistic approach for developing a new engineering education curricula

20. Need a New Breed of Engineers • Understand the four broad realms of Grand Challenges for the 21st Century • Can find, implement and maintain innovative solutions with an appreciation of the economic, social and global parameters • Can effectively function in a diverse, complex and ever-changing world • Can solve complex technical problems using creative problem solving skills through a multi-disciplinary team-based approach

21. EngineeringGrand Challenges: Why We Need a New “WPI Plan” for Engineering Education? Reflections and A Proposed Road Map

22. Need A New Breed of Engineers Who Understand the Four Realms of Grand Challenges Understands engineering fundamentals Multidisciplinary orientation Hands-on Creative Designer Team Player Systems Thinker Socio-Political Awareness Communicator Communicator Global Awareness

23. A Proposed Curriculum: NAE Grand Challenges Scholar Program • Developed at the first GC Summit in 2009 and endorsed by the NAE. • 38 Universities have now joined the program http://www.grandchallengescholars.org/update-list • 8 have developed active programs http://www.grandchallengescholars.org/active-programs • A series of annual Grand Challenges Scholar workshops

24. Five Components of NAE Grand Challenges Scholar Program • Research experience. Related to a Grand Challenge. • Interdisciplinary curriculum - Engineering+.Work at the interface of public policy, business, law, ethics, sociology, medicine and the sciences. • Entrepreneurship.Translate invention to innovation for global solutions in the public interest. • Global dimension.Develop global perspective necessary to address global challenges; innovation in a global economy. • Service learning.Develop social consciousness and motivation to bring technical expertise to bear on societal problems. (e.g. Programs such as EWB)

25. Five Components of • NAE Grand Challenges Scholar Program • How To Develop An Active Program: • Initially attract a select cadre of 20-30 students at each school. • Replicated at many other engineering programs to yield a pool of several thousand graduates per year prepared to address the most challenging global problems. • Will serve to pilot innovative educational approaches that will eventually become the mainstream educational paradigm for all engineering students. • Each participating institution will develop its own specific realization of the five components . Students who complete the program successfully will receive a distinction of Grand Challenge Scholar endorsed by their institution and theNAE.

26. Initiatives To Address the Grand Challenges A Few Samples • Duke University (Typical-similar to Olin’s): • Freshman/Sophomore Year - Involvement in curricular or extra-curricular GC related projects, courses, seminars, etc. • Junior Year- Declare GC Focus, and submit proposal for the GC portfolio and GC senior thesis. • Senior Year- Complete of the GC portfolio and GC senior thesis, and attend the national GC Summit. There are Required Components of the GC Portfolio and GC Senior Thesis. http://www.pratt.duke.edu/grandchallengescholars

27. ASME-NAE GCS Program Initial Efforts Incorporation of Grand Challenges into Design Spine • ‘Grand Challenges’ can be incorporated as elements into the early design courses • Provides a context and engineering background for students • Indicates areas where MEs are needed to provide leadership in the development of innovative and sustainable solutions. • Challenges relevant to mechanical engineering students: • the environment, • energy, • health, • security, • global collaboration. • quality of life

28. ASME-NAE GCS Program Initial Efforts Design/Professional Spine • Year 1 – problem solving course, engineering computer graphics course • Year 2 – product manufacturing course, design process course • Year 3 – product development course • Year 4 – two semester capstone senior design • Reinforce the design/ professional topics are year by year, with no gap in the sophomore and junior years, • All courses would incorporate group projects, teamwork, oral and written communication. • Implementation will require both intellectual and financial resources: buy-in from the faculty, increased industrial expertise and support, increased workshop, laboratory and design studio space.

29. ASME-NAE GCS Program Initial Efforts ‘Practical experience’ • Strengthening the ‘practical experience’ component of the students’ skill set. A significant portion of the curriculum should be dedicated to such activities. • The curriculum should contain a design/professional spine with significant design-build

30. ASME-NAE GCS Program Initial Efforts Design/Professional Spine • Professional skills such as problem solving, teamwork, leadership, entrepreneurship, innovation, and project management will be central features of the design spine. • These skills should be learned in the context of a structured approach to problem solving - problem formulation, problem analysis, and solution.

31. An Initiative at Cal Poly As Part of A Plan for NAE GCS Program Incorporate PBL with a GC focus throughout the curriculum. A sequence of courses, projects, and extracurricular activities starting from the first year culminating in the senior design, and a combined BS/MS – through a Holistic multidisciplinary project based approach. Industry MD-MS or 4+1 w/ a focus on “Thrusts” Faculty Team from all Programs (Innovative Content and Delivery) Industry “Steering” Board

32. A Proposed Plan for NAE GCS Program (Cal Poly) • 1st Year: • A 10 hour/wk community service, (Poly House, Habitat, etc.). • Industry sponsored seminars. • Join the multi-disciplinary senior design project mentored by a senior student. • An independent research project on Grand Challenges. • 2nd Year: • Similar to 1st Year + • an extracurricular team/design project related to GC. • Participate in Engineering Summer Camp as a mentor. • 3rd Year: • A year long “interactive qualifying project” (societal impact of technology). • A Global experience, EWB. • A GC project advised by a Professor of Practice (sponsored by industry). Summer internship. Mini Design Projects.

33. A Proposed Plan for NAE GCS Program (Cal Poly) • 4th Year: • A year long multi-disciplinary GC senior design project (can be done at industry, or with a Global Partner). Involve Business students. • A plan for the “incubation” of the resulting product. A GC project (GR level). • 5th Year : • GC Team thesis/project. • A half year at a Global Site. • A quarterly “Design Review Summit” held at Cal Poly with all students, faculty, and industry liaisons. Public will be invited.

34. Initial Phases Developed and Implemented Identify core competencies that map the Grand Challenges (e.g. Renewable Energy). Identify a multi-disciplinary faculty team representing the core competencies to form an interdisciplinary “cluster”. Make Project Based Learning Institute the “link” between the interdisciplinary engineering “cluster" and industry. Form a “steering committee” (representatives from the “cluster”, industry and other non-engineering disciplines).

35. Phases Developed and Implemented Multidisciplinary Senior Project Create a year-long Multidisciplinary Senior Design program as the first step for extending multi-disciplinary project-based education throughout the entire curriculum. • In 2008-09 launched the firstMultidisciplinary Senior Design Project at any major university. • An opportunity for the students to complete Sr. Project as part of an interdisciplinary team. • Enable students to apply Design, Build & Test a solution to a design problem that will benefit society (GC). Faculty Advisor Industry Champion Technical Mentors

36. Multidisciplinary Senior Project - Format • Industry (external) sponsored projects • Provide Problem + Funding • Industry Champion/Engineer Liaison • Full year program (30 weeks) • 3 Quarters (3 units/quarter = 9 units) • 1 Lecture/week (ENGR470) • 2 Design Labs/week (ENGR481/482/483) • Learning Outcomes: ABET Criterion 3(a-k) (Both Technical and Non-Technical) • 6 Faculty Advisors (6 departments) • All IP Belongs to Project Sponsor • Open to all Engineering Seniors and business majors

37. Multidisciplinary Senior Project – Sponsored Projects • Sample Projects: • Solar Robo Trimmer • Robotic Finger Spelling Hand • Neonatal Medical Device • Anchoring Device for Spinal Cord Stimulation • Student Participation: 28 • 6 Teams: 5-6 students/team • BMED: 10, MATE: 7, ME: 5, GENE: 2 • SE: 2, EE: 1 (2), IE/IME: 1

38. Multidisciplinary Senior Project – Key Topics • Design Process & Systems Engineering • Technical Reports & Presentations • Design for Manufacturability • Idea selection & Decision Schemes • Teamwork • Systems Engineering • Creativity, Idea Generation & Conceptual Modeling • Project Planning • Safety & Risk • Sustainable Design • Material Selection • Ergonomics • Intellectual Property • Entrepreneurship • Product Liability • Design for Quality • Industrial Design • Cost Estimating • Reliability • Documentation & Product User Guides • Global Perspective, Self-directed Learning & Life-long Learning • Resume, Interviews & Portfolios

39. Multidisciplinary Senior Project – Deliverables • Team Intro Letter to Sponsor • Team Contract • Project Requirements Document • Conceptual Design Review • Final Design Review • Prototype Status Presentations • Senior Design Expo (6/4/09) • Final Project Reports

40. Multidisciplinary Senior Project – Hands-On Manufacturing Support • 645 m^2 Student Shop • No Classes/ Only Projects • IME Resources

41. Multidisciplinary Senior Project – Senior Design Expo 6/4/09

42. NAE GCS Program And the Ongoing Dialogue • What Can Be Concluded? • Due to the new Global/Societal Landscape The Need for Improvement both in Context and Pedagogy is Recognized • A Number of Excellent Examples Have Been Noted, However, with Minimum Impact on the Mainstream of Eng. Ed. • How Should We Approach This Problem- A Suggested Path Forward

43. Historical Context • The rise to dominance of school culture in engineering education took place much later in England and the U.S.A. than in France or Germany. • The academic training of state engineers set a powerful role model in Continental Europe but was absent in Anglo-America. • Consequently, the academic training of engineers for the private sector of the economy started earlier in Europe, and the professional strategies of the engineersincluded emulating the public service.

44. Historical Context • Development in the US, two Schools of Thought: • French Approach – Thayer, • Influenced by La Place. Visited EcolePolytechnique. Founded West Point • Later contributed to the establishment of RPI • British – Apprenticeship. Result of the Industrial Revolution (1750 to 1850) • Land Grant Act (Morrill)- 1862

45. Historical Context • The evolution and History of Engineering Education in the Past 60 Years Is Particularly Relevant: • GI Bill of 1944, Grinter Report, 1955 • Sputnik Era, 1957,Grinter Report, 1955, Est. of NSF, NASA, booming era of Eng. Ed. and a shift to Research and Basic Sciences • The wave of change from 1950 to 1990’s- • Creation of the Research Focus and New Tenure Requirements—A New Culture • Compartmentalization of Disciplines • Focus on Sci/Math and de-emphasizing Hands-on, Industry collaboration • ABET and “regulating” engineering education • Unsuccessful NSF EECP Initiative

46. Innovative and Visionary Programs- WPI PLan • While vast majority of programs shifted towards applied science, compartmentalized and disciplinary focus, a few some notable exceptions established remarkably innovative models that addressed the need to retain engineering design, team work, multidisciplinary approach and “socially aware” engineer. • The most notable and innovative effort was WPI Plan, introduced in 1972. Although under the pressure of ABET had to change, it “forced” ABET to change: ABET 2000.

47. Traditional, Compartmentalized Course Based Curriculum Passing Through Filters Disciplinary Eng. Design Project H . & S. S. Eng. Science Disciplinary Eng. H . & S. S. ScienceMathematics Eng. Science H . & S. S. ScienceMathematicsHumanities & Social Sciences Senior Junior Sophomore Freshman

48. “75% of learning takes place outside the classroom” Eliminated courses and “pre-requisites” as degree requirements in favor of demonstrated competencies with a focus on project-based-education, requiring: a year long project in social sciences and humanities a year long interdisciplinary project on the “impact of technology on society” and a “global” experience completion of a year long, multi-disciplinary, team design a competency exam with an oral defense in front of a multi-disciplinary team of faculty. Integration of knowledge across disciplines and academic years. Educating a hands on, team oriented, socially aware engineer with a global perspective and interdisciplinary skills. WPI Plan

49. Grand Challenges As the Driving Force New Generation: Self Learners, YouTube/Internet Savvy Global Awareness Prefer YouTube and Internet Instead of Textbooks Technology Savvy More Service Oriented “Open Courseware” trend Rising Cost of Higher Education and the Societal Pressure for More Accountability for Academia We need a major overhaul with all cards on the table: ABET, General Education, Course-Based Curriculum, Grading System, Departmental Barriers, Pre-requisites, …. A New Era:

50. Summary • This is the most exciting time for engineering and science in human history. • The opportunity to lead the world to a more prosperous and sustainable future is before us. • We must garner the global will to do so. • “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.” • Charles Darwin • THANK YOU!