Evaluation and Assessment of Engineering Mobility: A North American Mobility Project

1. Evaluation and Assessment of Engineering Mobility: A North American Mobility Project A.O. Richardson, Ph.D. Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering California State University, Chico & G. Aguilera, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of International Security Studies U.S. Air War College ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

2. Introduction: Project Significance • Professional, cultural, language experiences abroad are desirable in a ‘globalized’ world. • Engineering students lag behind their liberal arts counterparts in international exposure. • Mobility project to improve that situation. • Project achieved 30 percent representation from women and minorities. • Above groups are under-represented in engineering in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. • “Global perspective” could make engineering attractive to more students in North American. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

3. Project Overview and Attributes • Project Title: North American Engineering Innovation and Training (NAEIT). • A U.S.-Canada-Mexico( North American) engineering mobility project. • Consortium of Six North American Universities. • Course credit transfer and grade equivalency among the partner universities. • Language (English and Spanish) and cultural preparation for students. • Expose engineers to foreign business and cultural practices. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

4. Continuation--Project Overview and Attributes • Memorandum of Understanding( MOU) signed by all Partner Universities. • Fifty-five students participated in a four-year period. • Students paid all tuition and fees to their home institutions. • Students’ travel and living expenses paid with funds from their country sponsors , namely: • HRSDC(Canada), FIPSE(U.S. Department of Education), SEP( Mexico). ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

5. Consortium Partners • CANADA: • University of Manitoba( UMANITOBA), Lead. • University of Saskatchewan( USASK), Partner. • UNITED STATES: • California State University, Chico( CSUCHICO), Lead. • University of Texas, El Paso( UTEP), Partner • MEXICO: • Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas( UAZ), Lead. • Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi (UASLP), Partner. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

6. Project Assessment Parametersand Tools • Quality of the ‘MOU’ • Effectiveness of planning and coordination. • Availability and suitability of courses, research, and internship projects • Course credit interchangeability. • Yearly mobility numbers. • Number and quality of projects performed by the students; • Progress in language and cultural preparation. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

7. Cont:- Project Assessment Parametersand Tools • Pre-mobility and Post-mobility written surveys administered to participating students. • Project evaluation done in collaboration with an Independent Evaluator. • We present the evaluation on sixteen participating U.S. students ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

8. Outcomes Evaluation: Overview • Administered pre- and post-mobility surveys. • Evaluated progress towards mobility numerical targets. • Program’s effectiveness: cultural, language, and professional objectives met? • Mobility increased participation in cultural activities. • Students made meaningful contacts in the host country  • Students significantly improved their foreign language skills. • Examined U.S students’ work completed in Spanish. • Clear evidence of improvement in Spanish language skills( business, technical, professional, and formal language). • Mexican students achieved similar results in their proficiency in the English language. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

9. Program Outcomes, Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment • Culture • Students became more active socially at their host university than at their home university. • Cultural activities included international food fairs, industrial nights, concerts, art exhibits. • Students participated in festivals, classical, pop concerts, dinners, international student association clubs, sports, non-profit volunteering, sporting events, museums, and religious activities. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

10. Cont:--Program Outcomes, Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment Contacts • Students made important contacts in their host country. • ‘Contact’ = “someone you have met such that: • they will remember you in the short run (less than one year) and medium run (2-3 years); • you have confidence that you will be able to contact them (and they you) in the short run and medium run.” Language • Reviewed students’ work completed in Spanish. • Above evidence shows students’ communication, linguistic and cultural skills, had improved significantly. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

11. Unanticipated Issues Encountered, and Lessons Learned • Need to improve partners’ response speed . • Complexities in U.S. student visa requirements.  • Foreign language prerequisites for foreign study. • Rigidcountry-specific accreditation requirements.  • Solution: • Intensive pre-departure language training in home countries.   • Host institutions waived their language proficiency requirements for students who successfully completed home-country language training. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

12. Cont:- Unanticipated Issues Encountered, and Lessons Learned • Need for very thorough, exhaustive, but labor-intensive search of host country’s engineering courses for compatibility with home curriculum. • Prospective mobility students spent a full year for pre-departure preparation and academic advising. •  Additionally, examine host university’s courses, projects, internships, for ABET accreditation compatibility. • Allow adequate time for pre-mobility petitioning of home institution for credit acceptance. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

13. Challenges and Recommendations for Future Work • Industry participation not readily achievable, due to the recent global economic downturn.   • More planning ahead and industry outreach.  • Improve websites for course content, credits and prerequisites information. • Streamline response mechanisms. • Process applications more promptly with acceptance or checklists of additional items to be submitted. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

14. Conclusion • The NAEIT Project exceeded its mobility targets. • Year 1: institutional infrastructure for mobility. • Year 2: recruit; design effective assessment plan. • Years 2,3, & 4: Mobility. Completed by end of 2011. • Moved 55 students, exceeded target of 48. • Created strong demand and high sustainability for engineering programs that produce North American engineers with the necessary global exposure. • Figure 1, shown below, is a chart representing the ‘Mobility Matrix’. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

15. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

16. Acknowledgements • This paper resulted from work done for a $200,000 four-year competitive grant( 2007-2011) made to the California State University, Chico, by the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education[ FIPSE ] . It was FIPSE project Number P116N070004. • The project’s Canadian and Mexican Partners in the consortium also received their own competitive grants from their respective governments--- HSRDC for Canada and SEP for Mexico. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

17. Bibliography • L. A. Gerhardt, and S. Martin, “The Global Engineering Education Exchange Program – A Worldwide Initiative”, In proceedings of the 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, (Nov. 10-13, 1999), San Juan, Puerto Rico, Session No. 11b7 , p.(10-13). • M. Bombardieri and A. Simpson, “Beyond the lab: MIT plan pushes study abroad. School would join a liberal arts trend.” The Boston Globe, (October 14, 2006).  • T. R. Phillips, “Writing Competitive Proposals for International Exchange Programs”, Internal Report, Universiteit Twente. • M. Morris, et al., “ International Student Exchange and the Medical Curriculum: Evaluation of a Medical Sciences Translational Physiology Course in Brazil”, American Physiological Society, Adv. Physiol. Educ 30, (2006), pp. 119-123. • “Case Studies of Academic Partnerships”, A Michigan State University Report • H. Salmenniemi and J. M. Ortiz, “ Student Exchange Programs: Students’ Expectations”, Board of European Students of Technology Report, IBS Chania, (March 20-24 2002), pp.1-8 • “Study Abroad/Exchange Program Evaluation”, Western Washington State University Report, (2003)pp. 1-9. ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina