Engineering Education: The times they are a-changin’ …

1. Engineering Education:The times they are a-changin’ … Leah H. Jamieson John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering Purdue University September 15, 2008

2. Outline • American Society for Engineering Education:Engineering Education for the Global Economy (EEGE): Research, Innovation, and Practice • Co-chair, with Jack Lohmann, Georgia Tech • http://www.asee.org/about/EEGE-Committee.cfm • National Academy of Engineering:Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving the Public Understanding of Engineering • Committee member

3. ENGINEERING EDUCATIONFOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY:Research, Innovation, and Practice American Society for EngineeringEducation (ASEE)

4. ASEE EEGE: The Drivers – 3N’s • Numbers - Why • Large percentage of engineers eligible for retirement • Failure to attract women and minorities • Failure to attract the best and brightest • More engineering graduates going into non-engineering roles

5. The Drivers – 3N’s • Needs - What • Globalization • New technologies – bio, nano, info • Multidisciplinarity • Rapid expansion of knowledge • Global challenges – water, energy, environment, health, food • New non-technical skills – teamwork, systems thinking, communications, motivation for life-long learning

6. The Drivers – 3N’s • kNowledge – How • How is as important as what • Learning and teaching are correlative processes • Traditional lecture mode is one of the least effective means for transferring knowledge • Shift from teaching-based model to learning-based is more than semantic

7. Calls to Action • US National Academy of Engineering Studies: • The Engineer of 2020:Visions of Engineering inthe New Century • Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century • Rising Above the Gathering Storm • Innovate America • Europe: Bologna Process • China: Five Year Plan’s focus on innovation • Peru: Science, Technology & Innovation

8. ASEE Background • June 2006 – Plenary panel on “Scholarship of Engineering Education” held at ASEE Annual Conference. “Year of Dialogue” is launched. • Fall 2006 to Spring 2007 – ASEE Section Meetings conduct YOD sessions. • Summer 2007 – All section data is compiled into tables. • Fall 2007 – Preliminary report written and circulated among ASEE zone chairs for comment. • Spring/Summer 2008 – Report presented to ASEE membership.

9. Consolidation From the preliminary data, 42 comments regarding the scholarship of engineering education were assigned to five major categories: • Faculty Issues and Rewards (10) • Pre-College K-12 and Outreach Issues (6) • Curriculum Reform and Evaluation Issues (9) • Outside Resources and Influences (8) • Research Topics and Issues (9)

10. Goals of EEGE Study • Build on YOD and other sources of input • Prepare a report by June 2009 • Blueprint for the positioning of engineering education • Based on educational scholarship • Prepare graduate for practice in the 21st century • Develop the faculty needed for the 21st century • Initiate and report on substantive action to advance the recommendations by June 2010

11. Principal Outcomes Envisioned • Enhance the capacity of US engineering education to attract, retain, and better prepare engineering graduates • Advance and sustain research in engineering education • Foster collaboration between scholars and practitioners in engineering and engineering education • Broadly disseminate innovative practices in engineering education confirmed by scholarship

12. EEGE Executive Committee • Project Co-Chairs • Leah Jamieson, Purdue University • Jack Lohmann, Georgia Tech • Executive Committee • Jim Melsa, ASEE Past President; Iowa State (emeritus) • Sarah Rajala, ASEE President; Mississippi State • J. P. Mohson, President-Elect; Univ. of Louisville • Frank Huband, ASEE Executive Director • Bill Kelly, ASEE Manager of Public Affairs

13. Six Working Groups • Six Working Groups • Scholarly educational practice • Engineering education research • Faculty preparation and development • University (internal) contexts • External contexts • Report impact and research

14. Working Group Demographics • Steering Committee - 13 members • 4 women, 2 under-represented minorities • Working Groups - 68 member • 26 women (38%), 14 under-represented minorities (20%) • 10 industry, 4 labs/associations

15. WG 1. Scholarly Educational Practice • WG Chair: Norman Fortenberry, NAECo-Chair: Stephanie Adams, Virginia Commonwealth University • Increase the use of engineering education research findings • Formal, informal, and work-based settings • Mechanisms for transforming new knowledge into practice • Faculty members & administrators are the principal audiences

16. WG 2. Engineering Education Research • WG Chair: Sheri Sheppard, StanfordCo-Chair: Pat Terenzini, Penn State • Foster discovery and dissemination of new knowledge • Conditions that promote and sustain high-quality influential research on engineering education • Education researchers are the principal audience

17. WG 3. Faculty Preparation & Development • WG Chair: Gary May, Georgia TechCo-Chair: Donna Llewellyn, Georgia Tech • Models for developing expertise and skills in engineering education research • Scholarly educational practice among new and existing faculty • Faculty and graduate students, engineering administrators are principal audiences

18. WG 4. University (Internal) Contexts • WG Chair: David Munson, University of MichiganCo-Chair: Walt Buchanan, Texas A&M • Organization, incentives, and physical infrastructure, funding and overall environment • Promoting scholarly research and practice in engineering education • University administrators are the principal audience

19. WG 5. External Contexts • WG Chair: Mike Corradini, University of Wisconsin-MadisonCo-Chair: Karan Watson, Texas A&M • Meaningful interaction between industry and academe • Enhance the currency and relevance of engineering education • Long-term support from government, accreditation bodies, foundations, professional societies, and other organizations that play enabling roles • External stakeholders are the principal audience

20. WG 6. Report Impact & Report Research • WG Chair: Barbara Olds, Colorado School of MinesCo-Chair: Maura Borrego, Virginia Tech • Collaborate with other WGs to develop assessment means • Conduct ethnographic research to inform the community about its challenges in implementing the recommendations • Engineering education community is the principal audience

21. Framework:Challenges & Recommendations • Three Challenges • Focus on the professional formation of engineers • “Engineering as a profession for students to pursue” in contrast to “Engineering as a discipline for students to learn” • Implications for broadening participation, both globally and locally: What do we know, based on research, about the positioning of engineering, they style of engineering education, and the audiences with whom we resonate?

22. Framework:Challenges & Recommendations • Three Challenges • Develop a new model for engineering education innovation • Innovation based on, and supported by, engineering education research • Move from periodic “reform” to “continuous innovation” based on research and development

23. Framework:Challenges & Recommendations • Three Challenges • Collaborate with key stakeholders and enablers • Strengthen collaborations across a wide web of stakeholders • Collaborations for innovation, learning by doing, pre-university impact, workforce development, … • Implications and partnerships for broadening participation

24. Approach and Outcomes • Form working groups and analyze and synthesize recent scholarly bodies of knowledge and proven practice – August 20, 2008 • Prepare a draft report – October 9, 2008 • Hold two-day workshop to get initial feedback on the draft report – November 3-4, 2008; revise & refine the report • Engage external reviewers - January - March, 2009; revise and prepare final report • Disseminate the report and begin implementing action plans – June 2009

25. Current Support • National Science Foundation • The American Society for Engineering Education

26. Status/Requests • Appoint a “point of contact” from your Society - Diane Matt • Feedback at various stages of the report preparation • Help us think about how professional societies can advance the action agendahttp://www.asee.org/about/EEGE-Committee.cfm

27. CHANGING THECONVERSATION:Messages for Improving PublicUnderstanding of Engineering National Academy of Engineering

28. Improving thePublic Understanding of Engineering • Over $400M spent each year on engineering outreach -with what results? • US National Academy of Engineering (NAE) initiative • Funded by the National Science Foundation • Conducted by BBMG market research firm • Long-term goals • Greater public understanding of engineering, leading to … • Greater public awareness of engineering • More diverse, better prepared students in the engineering pipeline • Greater technology literacy among the public • Greater appreciation for engineering amongdecision-makers and policy-makers http://www.nae.edu/engineeringmessages

29. Project Objectives • Identify a small number of messages that appear likely to encourage greater public understanding of engineering • Test the effectiveness of these messages in with a variety of audiences • Disseminate the results of the message testing to the engineering community Report published June 2008, NAE http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12187

30. Public Perceptions of Engineering AAES/Harris Polls, 2003

31. NAE ProjectResearch Methodology • Communications Audit – Review of previous researchand communications materials • In-Depth Interviews – Interviews with a cross-section of12 educators, opinion leaders, and engineers. • Focus Groups – 4 focus groups with youth ages 12-15 and 16-19 in Raleigh, NC, and Phoenix, AZ, and one group with parents of young people ages 9-19 in Raleigh. • Youth Triads – 4 sets, with three children ages 9-11 in each group, 45 minutes to 1 hour each. • Online Surveys – 2 surveys (general public and a second survey of African-Americans and Hispanics) - 1,866 adults and 1,768 teens age 14-17; margin of error ~4% @ 95% confidence

32. Research Findings • No identifiable “public face” of engineering • Youth and adults had low association of engineers with being “nerds” • Youth want well-paying, interesting jobs that make a difference • Above all else, both adults and teens relate engineering to being good at math and science • Engineers are seen as helping people - but not directly - especially true of teen girls

33. Career motivators for girls Rewarding Enjoyable Flexible Make a difference,give back to society Profession mustbe for someone“like me” Messages they hear Have to love math and science Challenging, but if you work hard you can do it Misaligned Messages Source: Extraordinary Women Engineers Project

34. Developing a Communication Plan • Positioning statement: Reframe engineeringfrom benefits and skills to making a world of difference • Based on the positioning statement, develop & test • Messages • Taglines - preliminary testing only • Media - in the future?

35. Appeal of Engineering: Examples For the following examples of engineering, please indicate how appealing it is. How well does it create interest for you in engineering? (Respondents answering “very appealing”) Adults Teens

36. Appeal of Engineering:Teens by Gender Boys Girls

37. Differences between Girls’ and Boys’ Responses • Girls believed that a woman can be an engineer • But mostly it will be “girls who like things that boys tend to like” • Could not name any female engineers • In selecting appealing images, younger girls pick images that involve people, boys pick images that feature things

39. Differences between Girls’ and Boys’ Responses • Girls believed that a woman can be an engineer • But mostly it will be “girls who like things that boys tend to like” • Could not name any female engineers • In selecting appealing images, younger girls pick images that involve people, boys pick images that feature things • Words that describe engineering: • Girls: Good at math & science; hard working • Boys: Good at math & science; problem solver • Words that don’t describe engineering: • Girls & Boys: Work is rewarding, well-respected

40. Differences between Girls’ and Boys’ Responses • Career choice: • “Engineering” ranked least familiar career among general population US boys and girls • Compared to teacher, doctor, lawyer, architect, scientist • Boys were twice as likely as girls to rate engineering as a good career choice • No other careers showed this gender difference • All teens ranked “interesting work” as most important • “Making a difference” more important to girls than boys; “challenge” and “salary” more important to boys than girls

41. Most Appealing Messages • Survey results • Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety • Engineers are creative problem solvers • Engineers help shape the future • Engineers make a world of difference • Engineers connect science to the real world 

42. “Most Appealing” Messages (Teens) Task: Choose a single “most appealing” message from the five.

43. Winners with teensDreams - gender balanced Preliminary Tagline Testing • Turning ideas into reality • Because dreams need doing • The power to do • Bolder by design • Designed to work wonders • Behind the next big thing • Life takes engineering More testing of taglines inmedia context is needed

44. Report Recommendations • “The engineering community should engage in coordinated, consistent, effective communication to ‘reposition’ engineering.” • Reframe engineering from benefits and skills tomaking a world of difference • Adopt the 4 messages that tested well; use based on audience • Engineers make a world of difference • Engineers are creative problem solvers • Engineers help shape the future • Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety

45. Report Recommendations • Do more testing, but use the preliminary taglines • Because dreams need doing • Turning ideas into reality • Develop a shared public-relations resource • Online public-relations toolkit • Consistent messages • Launch a campaign • Funding and logistics of a coordinated, multi-year,multi-million $ campaign

46. Changing the Message • What happens next? • Converge on repositioning:“making a difference” • Converge on key messages by audience • Test taglines • Develop a campaign that will engage professional societies, industry, and universities to deliver the message

47. THANK YOU!Questions? Leah Jamieson LHJ@purdue.edu