National Education Summit

The National Education Summit was designed to build upon the ideas set forth in The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. The workshop goals are to develop strategies, agendas, and action plans to achieve the objectives described in the report. The workshop will be held at the National Academy of Engineering on July 22-23, 2004, in Washington, D.C.

THURSDAY, JULY 22
8:00am Continental Breakfast
 
8:45am Opening and Welcome
Wm. A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering
Stephen Director, Dean of Engineering, University of Michigan and Chair, NAE Committee on Engineering Education
G. Wayne Clough, President, Georgia Institute of Technology and Chair, Engineer of 2020 Steering Committee

 
SESSION I: Chair, G. Wayne Clough
 
9:10am Engineering Education in the 21st Century: An Industry View
Ruth David, President and CEO, ANSER
 
9:50am Invited Panel: Innovation and Reform in Engineering Education
Panel Moderator, Ray Bowen, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University
Gretchen Kalonji, Professor, University of Washington
Arden Bement, Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology/Acting Director, NSF
Linda Katehi, Dean, School of Engineering, Purdue University
Bennett Stewart, III, Senior Partner, Stern Stewart & Co.
 
11:05am Break
 
11:30am Engineering Education in the 21st Century: A University View
Charles M. Vest, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 
12:15pm Lunch
 
SESSION II: Chair, Wm. A. Wulf
 
12:45pm Address by Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
 
SESSION III: Chair, G. Wayne Clough
 
1:15pm Review of Engineer of 2020 Phase I Report
Alice Agogino, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
 
1:45pm Statement of Charge to Breakout Teams
 
2:00pm Breakout Sessions
Attendees will be distributed among five breakout teams. The teams will be given the afternoon to respond to the team assignments.

A. An Education Philosophy and Strategy
Each breakout team is assigned an education philosophy below and is charged to develop a strategy for achieving the long-term goals of a successful engineering education model in 2020 within the framework represented by that philosophy.
  • Group 1 
    Leader, James Wagner, President, Emory University
    Propose an undergraduate engineering education model(s) that meets the aspirations expressed in the Engineer of 2020 Report assuming conventional constraints are not binding. Consider how much of the conventional curriculum should be retained, e.g., the calculus requirement.
  • Group 2 
    Leader, David Daniel, Dean of Engineering, University of Illinois
    Propose an undergraduate engineering education model(s) that comes as close as possible to meeting the aspirations expressed in the Engineer of 2020 Report while remaining within conventional constraints such as the "four year" curriculum and ABET requirements. How will we add new knowledge in areas like nanotechnology?
  • Group 3 
    Leader, Stephen Director, Dean of Engineering, University of Michigan
    Propose new pedagogical approaches that should be used to educate engineering graduates for 2020 with respect to accommodating differences in learning styles, the changing nature of the student graduating from high school, new options offered by educational technology, problem-based education, "just in time" material delivery, and interdisciplinary education.
  • Group 4 
    Leader, Sherra Kerns, Vice President for Innovation and Research, Olin College
    Explore the role of undergraduate engineering education in relation to liberal arts and social studies, and public policy. What should engineering do to promote preparation for management, law, medicine and other professions? How should topics like management and leadership be accommodated?
  • Group 5 
    Leader, James Johnson, Dean of Engineering, Howard University
    Propose revisions for department and faculty roles needed to meet the engineering education needs of graduates in the year 2020. Should all engineering faculty be required to have a Ph.D.? Should experience be required for capstone courses? How can the professoriate be diversified to better reflect the population at large? Can department expectations allow for flexibility in individual faculty expectations?
 

B. Setting an Action Agenda
Keeping in mind the philosophy assigned and strategy developed in part A, breakout teams will develop an action agenda to achieve their desired goals.

  1. List the things in engineering education that should be changed immediately (short-term) and would not require significant support from external communities. Choose the three most important things on the list and describe the rationale for their selection.
  2. List the things in engineering education that should be changed in the immediate or near-term but would likely require support from external communities. Choose the three most important things on the list and describe the rationale for their selection.
  3. List the things in engineering education that should not be changed, and that should be sustained into the new century. These will be considered constraints as the team develop plans to make the changes identified above.
  4. Consider the questions listed in the addendum as the action agenda is being developed.
5:00pm Reception

FRIDAY, JULY 23
8:00am Continental Breakfast
 
SESSION IV: Chair, Wm. A. Wulf
 
9:00am Review of Day 1
G. Wayne Clough
 
  Engineering Education in the 21st Century: An Industry View
Nicholas Donofrio, Senior Vice President, Technology and Manufacturing, IBM
 
SESSION V: Chair, G. Wayne Clough
 
10:10am Team Reports with Q&A
Teams will present their proposed strategies and action agendas to the full assembly. The audience will have an opportunity to critique and react to the proposals.
 
11:25am Break
 
11:40am Breakout Sessions
Breakout teams meet to create action plans considering feedback from the full assembly.

 
  C. Creating an Action Plan
Prepare a plan to make the three most important immediate changes and the three most important near-term changes identified in step B above. Keep in mind the constraints the team has agreed upon in step B.3 above. The action plans should include short and medium term milestones as needed, metrics to assess and evaluate the impact of the recommended changes, and mechanisms for feedback and continuous improvement. Consider the questions below as the details of the plan are developed.
 
12:00pm Lunch
 
1:30pm Plenary Session
Teams present their action plans
 
2:45pm Closing Remarks
G. Wayne Clough
Wm. A. Wulf
3:00pm Adjourn

 

July 22, 2004 – July 23, 2004
National Academies Building
2101 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC