Forum on Characterizing the Impact and Diffusion of Transformative Engineering Education Innovations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Forum on Characterizing the Impact and Diffusion of Transformative Engineering Education Innovations What is desirable What is possible What is viable with faculty Partial support provided by February 7-8, 2011 DUE-1059125 New Orleans, LA Forum on Characterizing the Impact and Diffusion of Transformative Engineering Education Innovations February 7-8, 2011 New Orleans, LA Hosted by: Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education of the National Academy of Engineering Sponsored by: National Science Foundation via grant DUE-1059125 General Chair: Ann McKenna, Arizona State University Breakout Chairs: Jeffrey Froyd, Texas A&M University C. Judson King, University of California - Berkeley Thomas Litzinger, Pennsylvania State University Elaine Seymour, University of Colorado - Boulder (retired) Commissioned Paper Authors: Jeffrey Froyd, Texas A&M University Charles R. Henderson and Melissa Dancy, Western Michigan University Lisa Lattuca, Pennsylvania State University Elaine Seymour, University of Colorado - Boulder (retired), Kris De Welde and Catherine Fry External Evaluator: Gary Lichtenstein, Quality Evaluation Designs Optional Background Reading (linked on website) 1. AAC&U study of faculty curricular innovation (across disciplines -- November 2010) 2. Montfort, Brown, and Pegg on adoption of a new assessment instrument (from FIE 2009) 3. Silva and Sheppard on enabling and sustaining educational innovation (from ASEE 2001) 4. Ehrmann et al. on factors affecting adoption of faculty software developments (from FIE 2007) 5. Lachiver and Tardiff on fostering and managing curricular change and innovation (from FIE 2002) 6. Borrego et al. on effectiveness of coalitions especially section by Lattuca, Terrenzine, and Harper on engineering change study (from FIE 2007) 1 Background We are holding an invitational one and one-half day forum. The thirty-two invited attendees are broadly representative of diverse individual and institutional perspectives and constituencies in engineering education including former NSF rotators, engineering educators, social science and education researchers, administrators, program evaluation experts, and change management scholars. Five invited guests, representing National Science Foundation (NSF) staff as well as graduate students engaged in relevant research, will also be present. Forum attendees are being asked to draw upon comparisons of successful and less successful examples of transformative educational innovations and their diffusion (dissemination and use) as well as commissioned papers in order to answer two sets of questions about innovation and its diffusion. 1. Based upon comparisons of more successful and less successful transformative educational innovations, a. What were the critical (human, organizational, resource, etc.) factors that led to success? b. What intermediate metrics provide indication of short-, mid-, and long- range success (educational impact)? c. What broad strategies emerge by which to pursue transformative educational innovations? 2. Based on comparisons of innovations that had greater and lesser success at diffusion, a. What were the critical (human, organizational, resource, etc.) factors that led to successful diffusion? b. What intermediate metrics provide indication of short-, medium, and long- range success in diffusion? c. What broad strategies emerge by which to diffuse transformative educational innovations? In order to facilitate the work at the forum, prior to the forum a panel of eight experts identified eleven candidates for instructional activities that might be judged innovative. Forum attendees voted via email to rate each identified innovation with respect to its degree of innovation and the extent to which it had diffused to other departments, other campuses, and/or other disciplines. Forum attendees were provided five votes to distribute among the candidates and had the option of placing all five votes on a single candidate or spreading them out among candidates so long as the total number of votes cast did not exceed five. The results of the polling are shown below. 2 The candidate instructional activities judged to be most innovative and most highly diffused were CBL = Challenge/Problem/Question/Context-based Learning (curricular, co-curricular, and non- curricular) including + case-based learning (including cases in failure, ethics, etc.) + project/service learning including EPICS, EWB, ESW, etc. + engineering design courses and clinics, particularly when they include lower-level students SCBL = Student Cohort-based Learning (e.g., learning communities) often with other innovations CL = Cooperative/Team-based Learning FA = Use of Formative Assessment tied to Course Objectives including + minute papers, + concept inventories + personal response systems—clickers, + question driven instruction The candidate instructional activities judged to be less innovative and less diffused were ETH = Engineering Ethics courses and modules, particularly when earlier in the curriculum SVS = Spatial Visualization Skills courses ITS = Integrated theory, skills, and practice spaces (e.g., Learning Factory, Ideas to Innovation Lab, etc.) IME = Introductory Mathematics for Engineering Applications STT = Systematic topical spine/thread/context learning throughout undergraduate curriculum ENTR = Engineering Entrepreneurship courses The candidate instructional activity judged highly innovative but not well diffused was HIASS = Holistic Integration of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences into Engineering Curricula spanning programs to make engineers better writers to programs leading to the bachelor of arts in engineering. 3 Activities at the Forum During the morning of the first day, in order to facilitate small group discussion, attendees will be split into four breakout groups (two each looking at innovation and two each looking at diffusion) to begin answering the two sets of questions. In the first afternoon, once initial discussion have been concluded, the breakout groups looking at the same question will be combined to offer each other new insights on the questions and to arrive at a new consensus. On the second day, the groups associated with each question will then present their findings to the other groups, respond to challenging and clarifying questions and then work collaboratively as a committee-of-the-whole. Subsequent to the forum , the general chair and the breakout group chairs will summarize the forum discussion in a form suitable for publication in a journal or presentation at a conference. The forum background papers and outputs will be posted to a project web site and a summary of key observations will be compiled in a PDF sent to all TUES grantees via email. Agenda Monday, February 7, 2011 7 am Breakfast (pick up food in Atchafala) Barataria A&B – rear 8 am Welcome, Introductions, and Charge from General Chair Barataria A&B – front 9 am 4 Breakouts (two for Question 1 and two for Question 2) Barataria – A front Barataria – B front Rivertown A front Rivertown B front Noon Working Lunch – within breakout rooms (pick up food in Barataria A rear Atchafala) Barataria B rear Rivertown A rear Rivertown B rear 2 pm Mini-plenaries (one each for Question1 and Question 2) Barataria A&B front Rivertown A&B front 3 pm Two breakouts (one each for Question 1 and Question 2) Barataria A&B front Rivertown A&B front 6 pm Working Dinner in breakouts (pick up food in Atchafala) Barataria A&B rear Rivertown A&B rear 7 pm Conclude for the day Tuesday, February 8, 2011 7 am Breakfast (pick up food in Cocodrie) Rivertown A&B rear 8 am Plenary (presentations of synthesis of answers for Rivertown A&B front Questions 1 and 2 10 am Refinement of Answers to Questions 1 and 2 based on Rivertown A&B front questions and feedback Meeting Evaluation survey Noon Working lunch (pick up food in Cocodrie) Rivertown A&B - rear 2 pm Adjourn 4 Breakout Group Assignments Question 1 - Innovation Question 2 - Diffusion 1A: C. Judson King, Chair 1B: Tom Litzinger, Chair 2A: Jeff Froyd, Chair 2B: Elaine Seymour, Chair Room = Barataria A Room = Barataria B Room = Rivertown A Room = Rivertown B Monica Cox Robin Adams Lorraine Fleming Shane Brown Peter Golding Lesia Crumpton-Young Sandra Hanson Charles Henderson David Jonasssen Domenico Grasso Krishna Madhavan Lisa Lattuca Russ Korte Marcia Mentkowski Cathryn Manduca Ann McKenna B. Jan Middendorf Christine Pfund Lance Pérez H. Keith Moo-Young Gerhard Sonnert Carlos Rodriguez Gloria Rogers Stephen Plank Sheryl Sorby Roberta Spalter-Roth Karan Watson Michael Prince GUEST: Mike Reese GUEST: Alan Cheville GUEST: Juniad Siddiqui GUEST: Maura Borrego Floaters: Russ Pimmel, Gary Lichtenstein, NAE Staff 5 Lists of Attendees David Jonassen Lance Pérez INVITED ATTENDEES University of Missouri University of Nebraska – Lincoln GUESTS Robin Adams C. Judson King Christine Pfund Maura Borrego Purdue University University of California – Berkeley University of Wisconsin – Madison AAAAS/NSF Shane Brown Russ Korte Stephen Plank Alan Cheville Washington State University University of Illinois – Johns Hopkins University National Science Foundation Urbana Champaign Monica Cox Lisa Lattuca Michael Prince Russell Pimmel Purdue University Pennsylvania State University Bucknell University National Science Foundation Lesia Crumpton-Young Thomas Litzinger Gloria Rogers Mike Reese University of Central Florida Pennsylvania State University Hires Foundation Johns Hopkins University Lorraine Fleming Krishna Madhavan Carlos Rodriguez Juniad Siddique Howard