Indo US Collaboration for Engineering Education (IUCEE) – A Case Study Krishna Vedula

1. Indo US Collaboration for Engineering Education (IUCEE) – A Case Study Krishna Vedula Professor and Dean Emeritus University of Massachusetts Lowell Vivek Singhal Founder and Chairman Strategic Business Management Co. Vsinghal@SBM-Team.com

2. Outline • Context • Introducing IUCEE • Progress so far and people who are involved • Results of the Summer Leadership Institute • Proposal for the 5 year program and financial model • IT/ ITES • Non IT engineering • Conclusion

3. Context India has close to 1800 engineering colleges growing at 15% per annum Total seats in the region of 650 k to 700k intake Close to 400k graduating engineers (contestable) Only 25% are employable/ trainable; even those don’t know the art of connecting the dots in a problem context

4. Concerns • Effect on post graduate education serious • Number of M Tech and Ph. D enrolment is abysmally low; • Qualified teacher shortage • Compromising future generations • Social tensions as huge amounts of money is invested by state and individuals with expectations which are failing; • Economic (Industrial) growth uncertain for want of predictable number of skilled people not linked to projections; • Not only have we experienced this in India but the professors of US universities who receive close to 50k of our graduates have experienced the decline in the competence and learning expected of a degree holder • The genesis of the IUCEE is seated in this experience of industry and education systems in US.

5. Indo US Collaboration for Engineering Education (IUCEE) Train the Trainer Approach 8 0 0 0 0 F A C U L T Y IUCEE-US IUCEE-India Subjects Regional Centers US Faculty Experts one-week workshops Indian Faculty Trainers Trainers Annual Indo US Engineering Faculty Leadership Institute in India Regional Workshops Training Kits

6. 2008 Indo US Engineering Faculty Leadership Institute

7. 2008 Indo US Engineering Faculty Leadership Institute • 23 workshops and 23 US faculty experts • 1400 applicants on-line • 585 Indian participants selected • All had at least M.Tech/ME Degrees; 25% had PhDs • 75% had more than 10 years experience • 25% senior administrators or heads of colleges • 24% female • 15% AP, 7% Gujarat; 26% Karnataka; 16% Maharashtra; 20% Tamil Nadu; 15% Other. • 175 colleges represented

8. 2008 Indo US Engineering Faculty Leadership Instituteconsidered overwhelming success based on: • Participant Feedback • Participant Energy Level and Involvement • Participant Follow-up implementation: • Workshops, seminars, course improvements, teaching and research networks established • US faculty comments • Industry involvement

9. Course Ratings Scale: Poor Fair Average Good Excellent 0 1 2 3 4 All 21 courses were rated Good to Excellent (3.0 to 4.0) 17 courses were rated by 50% responses as Excellent (3.50 +) 8 courses were rated by 75% responses as Excellent (3.75 +)

10. Participant Comments • Rajul Gajjar, Professor, LD College of Engineering, Gujarat:This is the first time people are actually going back with an actual plan; we are already committed; network of three institutions working together; it is really unique • Rio D’Souza, Associate Professor, St. Joseph Engineering College, Karnataka: They were not only talking about teaching techniques, but were practicing it • Hemal Shah, Assistant Professor, UV Patel College of Engineering, Gujarat: On-line testing for learning styles was really exciting to me; this is really making us global professionals • Prithvi Raj Bhupal, Vice Principal, Bellary College of Engineering, Karnataka: This has really opened my mind; so that I can really make a difference • Nandita Choudhury, Lecturer, Nirma Institute of Science and Technology, Gujarat:Provides me a good opportunity to take back a lot of things which I can share with other faculty • Milind Mali, Assistant Professor, SKN College of Engineering, Maharashtra:I am taking back the quality improvement slogan: “Say what you do; Do what you say; Prove it and Improve it” • M. Usha, Head of Dept; Sona College of Technology, Tamil Nadu: I have chosen this course on Computer Networks because of Jim Kurose, who authored the book; it was very different; I found his class to be very very interesting and very practical because of the labs. • G.H. Joshi, Professor, BVB College of Engineering, Karnataka:Best thing I have seen here is exposure to global practices; and great experiences of a team of professors from University of Puerto Rico • Ashutosh Marathe, Assistant Professor, Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, Maharashtra:Complete transparency; students are taken into confidence right from the beginning; very essential for building excellent partnership between students and faculty. • Sushma Kulkarni, Principal, Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Maharashtra: It has been a continuous complaint from HR managers: that only 10 to 20% of our students are employable; something should be done; the word “curriculum innovation” and the “Indo-US” part of this attracted me; to see what other countries are doing; the unique thing is that its is very participatory; we have really come to know the way they are implementing in their country • I.K. Bhat, Director, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur: With these new concepts we would definitely like to go to other colleges and help their faculty; we are planning to set up training center for teachers in our institute

11. Participant Comments • Divya, Lecturer, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh: I have been pretty surprised; More than my expectations; I have been exposed to completely different way of teaching the course on Wireless Networks; I will now teach be teaching differently, beyond the text books • Harshal Sawant, Assistant Professor, MS Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies: The course has really helped me; I really feel that I know how my course can be designed better; course instructor was marvelous and gave many examples; we learnt how to work in a group; how to improve our presentation • Manali Kshirsagar, Assistant Professor, YC College of Engineering, Maharashtra: while teaching us about outcomes based assessment, their approach itself is outcomes based; we are learning how to practice. • P.M. Prasuna, Head of Department, BVC Institute of Technology, Andhra Pradesh: Workshop is hosted by the favorite author of my favorite book; I got so many benefits; apart from theoretical approach he has also give practical ideas; so many unanswered questions were answered • Vineeta Gejji, Head of Dept, Gogte Institute of Technology, Karnataka: After coming here it was a real eye opener. I never thought we can apply teaching principles to teaching engineering; that had never occurred to me; I have 24 years of experience; this workshop has made me realize there are very good practices which can be implemented; I have lots of scope to improve engineering education; I plan to conduct similar workshops and train other faculty. • Anuj Jain, Professor, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology: Focus is on learning of students rather that on what teacher is teaching; in fact we are using some of what is being taught here, after many years of experience ; here we have learnt this in a structured fashion, which is more useful; if we can put this to younger faculty; they will become more effective from day one • Anand Kulkarni, Assistant Professor, SDM College of Engineering, Karnataka: Shift of emphasis from teaching to learning has been presented in a fantastic way • Krishnendu Chakraborty, Techno India College of Technology, West Bengal: Now I have understood the way of teaching, teaching methodology, I can motivate my faculty; I am taking away many things from this workshop; I carry tons and tonnes of ideas: three level approach: do it myself in my course, share success stories with my faculty colleges and then across the region • B. Seshu, Associate Professor, Bhoj Reddy Engineering College for Women: We have been trained, so we would like to train many more people. • Bani Bhattacharya, Assistant Professor, IIT Kharagpur, West Bengal: Incorporating active learning within the course itself; this approach is very important; I want to incorporate this in my courses; I have learnt many things and will become a trainer;

12. Fundraising and expenses for 2007-08 Income $ Desh and Jaishree 334,000 NRN and Sudha 334,000 Fees from participants 30,100 Corporate donations 23,000 Infosys Hospitality ~ 240,000 Total ~ 961,000 ___________________________________________________ Expenses $ US Faculty 391,000 Videotaping and Materials 80,000 Kit development and training 50,000 Coordination, administration 180,000 Coordination, administration 20,000 Participant Boarding and Lodging ~ 241,000 Total ~ 961,000 ___________________________________________________

13. Follow up Challenges • Sustaining momentum of Indian faculty • Sustaining financially • Scaling to reach large numbers • Broadening to other fields • Assessing and quantifying outcomes • Leveraging Government programs

14. Future Plans (2009 and beyond) • Sustainability and Scalability according to the model proposed • Conduct Summer Institutes Annually • Develop Training Kits based on Summer Institutes • Train selected Participants to become Trainers using Kits • Trainers conduct regional workshops, collect fees for sustaining and developing programs • Mentor Regional Centers of Teaching Excellence

15. Measure of Success • Continuous feedback and assessment to measure • Employability of graduates (increase from 25% to 50% in five years ?)

16. Train the Trainer Approach 8 0 0 0 0 F A C U L T Y IUCEE-US IUCEE-India Subjects Regional Centers US Faculty Experts one-week workshops New Indian Faculty Trainers Trainers Annual Indo US Engineering Faculty Leadership Institute in India Regional Workshops Training Kits

17. Potential for Scale-Up *2008-09 is Pilot Year

18. Proposed Funding • Private Industry • Objective: More Employable Graduates • $ 40 K per course per year (for US Faculty Trainers) • Solicit for interested field of engineering • Example $ 1,000,000 for 25 courses per year • Government • Create scheme to be administered by Government • Pay travel, boarding and lodging and part fees for faculty attending workshop (Indian Faculty Trainers and Faculty Participants) • 9 Cr in 2009-10 • 16 Cr in 2010-11 • 23 Cr in 2011-12 • 30 Cr in 2012-13 • Regional Center • Offer regional workshops and charge fees • Revenue from fees after paying trainers, materials and facilities to be used for program and curriculum development for excellence

19. Summary • Access: Scale and sustainability can be achieved in five years • Private funding: Sponsors courses of interest to their field for employment • Public funding: Govt. creates scheme to support faculty participant costs • Quality: Regional Centers take ownership of regional dynamic of excellence in engineering education • Social Appreciation: High quality engineering graduates assist in solving problems facing society

20. Questions? Vivek Singhal Vsinghal@SBM-Team.com