Institute of Technology

Institute of Technology Retreat Survey Report May 5, 2014 | Richard Wilkinson, AVC Organization Development

Survey Participant Profile All retreat participants completed the follow-up survey.

Survey Highlights Below are selected highlights of the survey. Complete survey results are shown in the remainder of this report. In considering the highlights, it seemed most telling under the bold ideas for new curriculum to combine the Some Value and Great Value votes together. On the other hand, it seemed more telling to highlight those stakeholder panel ideas considered of “Great Importance” to explore further. BOLD IDEAS When “Some Value” votes and “Great Value” votes are added together, the top five curriculum ideas to consider adding are: 1. A new introductory course [25] 2. More diverse courses, like graphics [24] 3. Technology projects for student teams selected by an outside panel [23] 4. Technical writing course [23] 5. Adding a BFA in Art & Computing [22]

STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION TOPICS The five stakeholder discussion topics receiving the most “Very Important” votes were: 1. The challenge is not whether to do research; it's what research to do. What is our niche? [17] 2. Student needs transcend their discipline. [Consider attention to] problem solving and working on teams.[16] 3. Freshmen and transfer students need a technology skill set regardless of their fields.[15] 4. We need to remember who we serve. Institutions don't to that enough [13] 5. Students may not be ready for the way we teach. We lose female students by asking students to conform to our way of teaching. [13]

1 BOLD CURRICULUM IDEAS

[Highlighted cells indicate the ideas receiving the most “Great Value” votes.] B C Below are the "Bold Ideas" on expanding institute D A Som Gre B+C curriculum that were proposed during the retreat. How No Tot Little e at Greates would you rate the value of each for the students and Opini al Value Valu Valu t Value community in 2020? [value = relative worth, merit, or on importance] e e

Offer more diverse courses in the current department, 4% 64% 29% 4% 1 28 93% like graphics, satisfying our student requests and 1 18 8 1 broadening their eyes. Implement a new introductory course to broaden participation in computing and computer science. The 48% 44% 7% 2 course would take a broad approach by introducing 0 27 92% aspects of CES, CSS, and ITS and be taught using 13 12 2 pedagogy that encourages curiosity, creativity, and exploration. Have an active outside advisory board of non-profit and small business representatives to collect, review, and 7% 48% 37% 7% 3 27 85% suggest technology projects of specific scope and size 2 13 10 2 for student teams to tackle and complete over a 3- to 6- month period. 11% 37% 48% 3% 4 Offer a technical writing course(s) with a multi- 27 85% disciplinary focus. 3 10 13 1 11% 56% 26% 7% 5 Offer a BFA in Art & Computing with a focus on 27 82% animation and web design. 3 15 7 2 21% 25% 46% 7% 6 Offer an Electrical Engineering Degree (ask industry to 28 71% check out need) 6 7 13 2 27% 35% 35% 4% 7 Offer an interdisciplinary Ph.D. (with arts, social 26 70% science, etc.) 7 9 9 1 19% 37% 33% 11% 8 Offer a degree in Mechanical Engineering (advisors 27 70% say potential students ask about this). 5 10 9 3

Implement an online version of TCSS 142 Intro to 26% 41% 26% 7% 9 27 67% Programming with entrance requirements and limited 7 11 7 2 enrollment. Design and co-deliver a 2-credit technology careers 1 course. Students need assistance understanding the 32% 39% 21% 7% 28 60% 0 broad opportunities available to them by integrating 9 11 6 2 development technology skills into a variety of career clusters.

1 Identify the top two most important research 30% 41% 19% 11% 27 60% 1 directions of the department to attract good quality 8 11 5 3 students and faculty.

1 Create a free, online Java 1 (or Python?) class, self- 39% 32% 21% 7% 28 53% 2 paced or not, with occasional on-campus gatherings that 11 9 6 2 leads to college credits.

1 Develop competency-based degree programs to 32% 43% 7% 18% 28 50% 3 provide students greater flexibility and increase their 9 12 2 5 engagement in their own education. 2 COMMENTS 1. There should be more than 2 research areas identified. 2. Clearly applied interdisciplinary approach is key to building a program that helps students transition to jobs. We should work with existing units to accomplish if they are willing. 3. One of the suggestions mention adding a graphics course, but we already have a graphics course... STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION TOPICS [Highlighted cells indicate the ideas receiving the most “Very Important”” votes.]

A B C B+C Which of these ideas introduced by the No Not Somewha Very Tot Most stakeholders would be most important to opinio importa t importa al Importa explore further from the vantage point of best n serving the students and community in 2020? nt important nt nt Freshmen and transfer students need a technology skill set regardless of their fields. 4% 36% 54% 7% 1 28 90% They need to know how to analyze data. We 1 10 15 2 don't have foundational courses around technology, design, data analysis, etc. 11% 64% 25% 2 Bring art into the mix, such as through 0 28 89% industrial design 3 18 7

Student needs transcend their discipline. 4% 29% 57% 11% 3 28 86% [Consider attention to] problem solving and 1 8 16 3 working on teams. 14% 54% 32% 4 Get more input from students in terms of 0 28 86% what they need. 4 15 9 Dream big. Push each other as good collaborators. Know there are folks here to 7% 46% 36% 11% 5 28 82% support you. You don't have to think about all 2 13 10 3 of this on your own. We get bogged down in thinking and planning and not doing. 7% 36% 46% 11% 6 We need to remember who we serve. 28 82% Institutions don't to that enough. 2 10 13 3 11% 50% 32% 7% 7 How do you prepare students for jobs we 28 82% haven't heard of? 3 14 9 2

Students may not be ready for the way we 7% 36% 46% 11% 8 28 82% teach. We lose female students by asking 2 10 13 3 students to conform to our way of teaching. 14% 50% 29% 7% 9 We don't have enough majors and enough 28 79% diversity of majors to serve all the needs. 4 14 8 2 1 19% 15% 63% 4% The challenge is not whether to do research; 27 78% 0 it's what research to do. What is our niche? 5 4 17 1 1 7 % 39% 39% 14% 28 78% 1 We should better support students. 2 11 11 4 1 19% 52% 26% 4% We need more dedicated career 27 78% 2 development investment. 5 14 7 1

1 Project management training; training the 22% 59% 15% 4% 27 74% 3 technician. We also need to train those 6 16 4 1 managing the technicians.

3 1 I thought the [Institute] faculty would be the 21% 36% 36% 7% 28 72% 4 brave ones using new channels, leading 6 10 10 2 new ways of teaching. We spend too much time on IT. IT has 1 changed so much over time--the way we 36% 40% 18% 7% 28 58% 5 create products, build structure, it's all 10 11 5 2 changed. Do we still need to teach programming? COMMENTS 1. I thought the [Institute] faculty would be the brave ones using new channels, leading new ways of teaching. - shouldn't this be the job of Colleen? Just because we are the Institute of Technology does not mean we spend time in this space as I would think she does/should. 2. We need to find a balance between (1) what we understand students need to succeed after college (not just in their jobs), (2) what they think they need to succeed after college, and (3) the ideals we as a university want to uphold and further. 3. Very difficult to categorize these statements the way they are worded. 4. I agree with project management training but not technician training

OTHER IDEAS, COMMENTS, OR SUGGESTIONS 1. Every member of the Institute paired up with a student team could outeach to k-12, businesses or non-profits to increase awareness /involvement in the community 2. We need to conduct regular focus groups of female students to see what challenges they have faced, what helped them persist, and what they think we could do to encourage more women to study with us. 3. There are a number of things that are needed to get the Institute to the next level, some of which were touched on in the retreat, but many others that were not: 1. Planning. Despite what was said in the retreat, we have done a poor job in planning and really thinking through the implications of what actions we propose to take. We simply create new problems when we react (knee-jerk style) to what we think we want or what others think we should do. 2. Transparency. Ideas, both in the planning and execution phases, need to be communicated transparently and clearly so that all affected, which is usually everyone, know what's going on and knows what their role is in the plan of action. Collectively we have done a poor job on this, and some individuals are particularly bad. 3. Providing time and space to be creative. We are so bogged down in day-to-day work, partly fueled by explosive growth, that there is little time for truly creative and "bold" ideas. Let's create the time and space for all of us to engage without always being pressured to make big changes without having thought things through. The greatest ideas in the world are useless if they are poorly executed. I believe the Institute has always had the talent and ideas to be great, but internal and external dynamics seem to have always held us back. 4. The idea of a building for the Institute was not given proper due. The people who suggested this were serious and gave their day to express what they thought was important, and the actual description of "why" the building was important was explained in a very compelling way and addressed the issue of style over substance, which was ironically the reverse of how the suggestion was received and treated. It is widely reported that the Seahawks championship season began with Russell Wilson asking his teammates "Why not us?". Given that if UWT is to meet the growth target identified, buildings will have to be built to house students, faculty, labs, etc. So I ask, "Why not us?"

4 Go to Google and look up MIT, Julliard, etc. You can find a place, a building, where these great institutions are housed. Where is the Institute? 5. I'm not sure the Institute is in the best state to reinvent itself because we struggle with daily operations and short-term planning, which make it difficult to imagine adding multiple programs to our existing set. I think collaboration with campus and community, including students, will be key to developing programs and services which are needed and innovative, and in supporting the Institute as it takes on our "big dreams." 6. More labs. 7. One key way I see the Institute serving the students / community is to build a pipeline of employment, job creation and economic activity that stays in the south sound. This means deeper engagement from our advisory board, more industry collaborations and a better bridge from graduation to either jobs in the community or support in spawning companies out of the research activities at the Institute. We should have a goal to produce at least 1 new viable startup every biennium. 8. Pay attention to what is actually happening in the world and where the major trends are taking us. Don't just assume tomorrow is going to be basically the same as today. 9. It would be wonderful to identify a unifying 'theme' for our programs. This would be a 'focus' which all the programs could contribute towards. Examples: Cyber security, distributed computing, data analytics, systems science, whatever. It would be nice for the Institute to be 'known' for SOMETHING. This would be a point of pride for students, staff, and faculty. I don't even think it matters what specific theme is chosen. All programs (CSS, CES, ITS, CSS and MCL grad programs, applied computing minor) could each have some learning goals aligned to this 'theme'. Faculty research and work at the Center for Data science could also strive for alignment with an Institute 'theme'. Currently our programs are very general and lack a concentration. It is a plain 'vanilla' program. The only thing we have historically been able to say that sets our program apart is 'small class size'. There is talk we may lose that. If so, then we will have no special claim that we can make about our programs and the Institute.