Engineering Beyond Boundaries - Aligning Engineering Academic Experiences and Outcomes in Response to a Rapidly Changing

1. Steven Cramer Wendy Crone Moira Lafayette Dan Klingenberg Paul Peercy Jeffrey Russell Darryl Thelen Amy Wendt (and with acknowledgement to Greg Moses) University of Wisconsin-Madison – Teaching and Learning Symposium May 19, 2010, Pyle Center Engineering Beyond Boundaries - Aligning Engineering Academic Experiences and Outcomes in Response to a Rapidly Changing World

3. Engineering Beyond Boundaries The College of Engineering will provide a contemporary engineering education that is strong in the fundamentals of the discipline and also fosters an understanding of the societal context of engineering and a passion for life-long learning. This will be achieved by guiding students through new educational opportunities to: • build disciplinary excellence with multidisciplinary perspective, • nurture critical thinking, • develop multicultural competence, • cultivate collaboration and leadership skills, and • promote an ethic of service to the profession and the community. Engineering Beyond Boundaries Roundtable - 2008

4. Comprehensive Organizational Change • What does it mean? • pervasive, affecting numerous offices and units across the institution; deep, touching upon values, beliefs and structures, is intentional, and occurs over time • Eckel, P., Hill, B., & Green, M. (1998). On change: Enroute to transformation. Occasional Paper, No. 1. Washington DC: American Council on Education

5. Comprehensive Organizational Change • Kezar and Eckel, 2002 • The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts? • The changes many institutions face have accelerated beyond tinkering; more campuses each year attempt to create comprehensive (or transformational) change. Yet, change strategies have not been exceedingly helpful in their capacity to guide institutions, and we know even less about how to facilitate major, institution-wide change.

6. Comprehensive Organizational Change • Froyd, Penberthy and Watson, 2000 • Good Educational Experiments are not Necessarily Good Change Processes • Fournier-Bonilla, S., Watson, K., Malave, C. and Froyd, J. 2001 • Managing Curricula Change in Engineering at Texas A&M University. • Massy, W. Anker Publishing Co, Inc., 2003, 376 pgs • Honoring the Trust – Quality and Cost Containment in Higher Education:describes problems facing academia, offers a vision of solution, provides practical guidance to drivers of change

7. Challenges • How to build buy-in that change is actually needed? • “We are highly ranked now.” Arguments that change will degrade educational quality (therefore it is better to do nothing). • The rigor of my education (20 or more years ago) defines what is needed today • How to impact and change existing disciplinary curricula? • Controlled by individual units • How to impact and change existing course delivery techniques? • Controlled by individual faculty? Declining Instructional Budget

8. The Massy Approach • Massy, W. Honoring the Trust, Anker Publishing Co, Inc., 2003, 376 pgs. • Build awareness and commitment • Commission pilot projects • Create venues for ongoing discussion and development • Organize skill development and consultation services • Broaden the rewards, recognition, and incentives environment • Adopt performance-based resource allocation • Develop an internal oversight and review capacity

9. Our CoE Experience • Implementation Steps 1 and 3: Building Awareness and Commitment through Venues for Ongoing Discussion • Build core team • Engineering Beyond Boundaries Task Force – 7 faculty • Engineering Education Leadership Institute (sponsored by NAE and the Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education) - 2005 • “Developing Engineering Faculty as Leaders of Academic Change” – NAE Workshop 2009 • Expand the engagement • Listening sessions - 2005 • Creation of EBB Roundtable - 2006

10. Listening Sessions in 2005 • Environment • Leadership, incentives, and flexibility must exist for students, faculty, and staff to participate in experimentation, change, and choice. • Faculty and staff must provide an education that prepares our students to enter the world as it will be, not as it was. • Faculty, staff and students need to be able to work effectively in an environment where diversity is the norm rather than the exception.  • Interaction • Cross-disciplinary research and education will be the norm, but only if the support infrastructure exists. • Interaction across groups (faculty, staff, students, departments, etc.) will help build community and encourage further cross-disciplinary collaborations. • People • Professional development for faculty and staff will enable them to keep pace with changes in the college, the profession, and the world, and thus serve students well.

11. EBB Roundtable - 2006 • Group of 25 – faculty, staff, students • People who understand the need for change and a strong interest in the undergraduate experience • Identify obstacles to change • Helping to design and communicate the change • The College of Engineering will provide a contemporary engineering education that fosters an understanding of the societal context of engineering and a passion for life-long learning. • build disciplinary excellence with multidisciplinary perspective, • nurture critical thinking • develop multicultural competence, • cultivate collaboration and leadership, and • promote an ethic of service to the profession and the community.

12. College of Engineering All faculty and staff EB2Round Table 25 College Change Leaders EB2 Task Force 7 Faculty

13. Implementation Step 2 • Commission Pilot Projects • Incentives enabling experimentation • 26 projects funded in 2007, 2008, 2009 • Mostly faculty, staff and student salary support

14. Pilot Projects • InterEGR 102 – Introduction to Society’s Engineering Grand Challenges • PI: Prof. Susan Hagness and others • Based on NAE report identifying Grand Challenges • Access to clean water • Make solar energy economical • Restore/improve urban infrastructure • etc • Appeal to nontraditional engineering student • Freshmen introduction to engineering • Fall 2009 enrollment: 151 (capacity plus 1) • Grand Challenges

15. Pilot Projects • Statics – EMA 201 • PI: Prof. Mike Plesha • Created animations to allow visualization of problem solving • Required course in many majors • Fall 2009 enrollment: 223 (at capacity) • Statics

16. Pilot Projects • Certificate programs • Energy Sustainability • Risk, Uncertainty and Decision Analysis • Integrated Studies in Science, Engineering and Society

17. Pilot Projects • Zhejiang University Summer Program • PI: Marianne Bird Bear (now Amanda Hammatt) • Created summer program for engineering student at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China • 8 weeks (1 engineering course and 1 course in technical communications) taught by UW instructors • Weekend excursions • - Summer 2010 enrollment: 15 (third offering)

18. Status of other implementation steps • 4) organize skill development and consultation services, • 5) broaden the rewards, recognition, and incentives environment, • 6) adopt performance-based resource allocation, • 7) develop an internal oversight and review capacity.

19. Next Steps • Expand the knowledge base of our change agents, particularly in the areas of pedagogy and consensus building.  • We are increasingly bringing educational experts into the college for special seminars and presentations. We seek to better leverage the educational innovation activities that occur broadly across our campus. • Engage colleagues in manner that is pre-emptive in managing conflict and change reluctance. • Re-communicate the vision of the EB2 initiative.  • Recommit to working toward better measurement, documentation and communication of progress. • With the long-term in mind, continue to move forward with consistent goals and messages. persistence is key

20. Individual Exercise • Identify an organizational change that you experienced. • Was it successful or unsuccessful? • Why?

21. Brainstorming (small group) • What are the barriers to change in your unit?

22. Barriers to Change • Learning different systems • Worries about failure • Larger the unit the harder the change • Loyalty and relationships based on existing structures • Constraints caused by physical space • Short term costs versus long term gains • Leaders who are not committed or lack the vision for change • Time limits to engage in change

23. Brainstorming (small group) • Choose one of the barriers identified and develop a set of strategies that could be employed to overcome it.

24. Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Change • Getting people on board for change: • Competence in • Participants shape the process • Early successes/pilot projects • Provide reasons for change • 4. Loyalties • Listening to participants • Start small group (local allies) and expand

25. Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Change • Buyin to change • Convincing people things are not working as well as they could • 4 Loyalty… • First understanding existing structures • Institutional barriers in rules

26. Wrap Up • Thinking back to the organizational change you identified earlier, are their commonalities with our brainstorming and group discussion? • Similar barriers to change? • Strategies that were employed? • Strategies that may have been more successful?

27. Thank you for participating today!