Summary of Symposium Findings, Chicago Agenda Book, and Other Materials

1. What challenges do academic educators on your campus face? What is the relative importance of each challenge.

 The goal for this activity was to determine the group’s opinion of the relative importance of each challenge.  Each participant was provided 5 dots to vote on what they felt were the biggest challenges facing engineering change leaders. They could place all votes in the same category or spread them across categories. Table 1 below shows the relative ranking of the perceived challenges participants felt were facing engineering educators.

2. What knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) need to be developed for engineers to be successful as academic change leaders?

 

Using a brainstorming and affinity exercise, facilitators asked participants to list on post-it notes KSAs that they thought were important for engineering education change leaders.  Participants were then asked to identify the most important KSAs by voting with five colored dots. They could place all five dots on one category or distribute them across categories or themes. Workshop facilitators then rank-ordered KSAs based on the number of dots assigned to each one.

 

Table 2 displays the sixteen categories of KSAs identified by workshop participants. Categories with the highest rankings include communication, knowledge, and positive personal traits.

 

 

Communication, the highest-ranked category, was described as “listening actively and synthesizing what you hear” and “two-way communication.” 

Knowledge, the second highest-ranked category, can be categorized into the following four areas: (1) knowledge of policies and procedures, (2) pedagogical knowledge, (3) technical knowledge, and (4) knowledge of change processes. Knowledge of policies and procedures most often involved institutional policies, particularly policies related to faculty. Phrases included an “ability to balance institutional perspectives against individual, faculty-centered points of view” and “knowledge of university policies and proceedings.” Pedagogical knowledge related to a leader’s ability to understand educational concepts.  Knowledge of change processes meant leaders needed to understand that change is inevitable. Participants noted several elements of change, including the importance of understanding the change process, assessing success of change efforts, coping with resistance to change, adapting to change, and identifying change.

Positive personal traits, the third highest-ranked category, covered a range of traits that were identified to be necessary for academic changes leaders. Among the recurrent traits identified by participants patience, empathy, being “thick skinned,” having passion for a cause, and being fair and just.

 

3. What knowledge should change leaders possess?

We engaged in a brainstorming activity to learn more about participants’ interests and knowledge desires, and determine what the participants wished to learn from their colleagues. The facilitator led a general brainstorming activity asking conference participants what they wished to know from each other.  Participants provided input regarding specific topics of interest to share among colleagues. The generated “knowledge wish list” included:

 

§                               What kinds of data are used to evaluate change?

§                               Where are resources to implement change found?

§                               What changes would you like to implement at your university?

§                               How do people balance affective change with fact-based data?

§                               The problem is ____ (fill in the blank)

§                               How has academic change been implemented?

§                               How do we implement proven pedagogy?

§                How do you remove obstacles (people, key person or certain positions)?

§                Why are people resistant? Including (if relevant) beliefs and values and how to work with those beliefs and values

§                Who is engaged in a formal process of change?

§                What instigated the change activity?

§                How do we sustain change after it is no longer new and shiny?

§                How do we tailor messages to different audiences?

§                Since change is about people, what are the differences between universities, engineers, and engineering education?

§                What are your narratives of change including stories of failure as well as success?

§                What are lessons you learned for future change initiatives? What you would do differently?

§                What does the research say about change?

§                How do you involve external consultants? What about external stakeholders? How do you communicate back to them?

 

4. What are some "best practices" from successful academic change leaders?

During the course of the session, a number of common themes emerged in association with successful initiatives including funding, communication, people, timing, and structural issues. The best practices offered by the groups included the following:

 

§                                                                   Funding. When it comes funding sources, where does the money come from besides grants? Options people had used for funding: (a) institutional funds (school, department, college but not upper level administration), (b) Industry advisory boards – provides input and funds, (c) external or alumni donors, (d) seed money from the NSF, and (e) “mini” endowments. Seeing and seizing opportunities for creative resource use helped many teams be successful in change initiatives.

 

§                                                                   Communication. A number of issues related to communication were associated with successful initiatives.  Participants encouraged (a) extensive and repeated communication, (b) heavy communication across organizations, (c) using distilled, one-sentence ideas, (d) audience-targeted messages, (e) selecting different strategic messages, (f) identifying specific tools for communicating, (g) and simplifying the complexity of websites and handouts.

 

§                                                                   People.  Recognizing that change is a people process, participants provided best practices for successful change initiatives. Specific strategies included: (a) recognizing where people are in the change including remembering that some people may not be aware where are they on the scale of change, (b) providing engagement experiences, (c) targeting potential resistor groups, and (d) “fighting the human nature” by avoiding centering around those that will accept your ideas.

 

§                                                                   Structure. Organizational structure and people’s positions within it affect the success of change initiatives.  For example: (a) success is facilitated by grass root efforts and support from top-down, interaction must flow in both directions, (b) department heads may influence educational change by supporting or leading it (c) solving one’s own problem by analyzing the institutional structure (d) recognizing the influential individuals since change is often controlled by one person in a powerful position who determines and controls change.

 

§                                                                   Timing. Change initiatives may succeed (or fail) because of timing especially if we are too far ahead of the curve. It is important to (a) assess the culture of the institution to see if they are ready for the change and (b) assess the signs and determine the right moment.

 

 

5. What are some situations which impede successful academic change?

 

Participants also identified a number of themes translated across types of change, level of focus, and other situational variables consistent with unsuccessful change initiatives.  These include:

 

§                                           Resources. Unsuccessful initiatives were characterized by a lack of resources, particularly failure to identify, secure, and maintain internal and external funding. There is a need to build a community that provides for financial and other resources.

§                                                            People. Unsuccessful initiatives failed to develop a community supportive of the change. Specifically they lacked clear knowledge of where individuals stand and how to help them evolve, including failing to identify which faculty would be most resistant to change and getting them involved early. Unsuccessful initiatives also failed to develop the skills of the people involved in the change whether that be teaching and learning skills or other skills necessitated by the change. There was often a lack of trust. Success still depends on the people who are implementing the change. We must allow time to have people develop those skills to implement the change. Knowing faculty and reaching them personally is critical to success.

§                                                            Change Process. According to participants, unsuccessful initiatives tended to treat the symptoms, rather than addressing the root cause of problem. As well, the specific barriers to change were not clearly identified. Unsuccessful initiatives also had poor timing. Overall there was failure to identify, develop, and allow sufficient opportunity for change initiatives.

 

6.6. One person's examples of applying the lessons of what does and does not work.

Here is one example of content from a poster session, as provided by one program participant in her own words, including her summary of the lessons from each successful initiative:

 

An Olin College participant indicated that she had the experience of having heard the data about cooperative and problem based learning and the evidence of its effectiveness however, she had never been motivated to use this technique. She had the opportunity to hear a talk by Woody Flowers on a study that had been conducted on MIT students that indicated that these students reported that they used only 10% of what they learned. So, faced with a course that was relatively new for her to teach and had others using these techniques, she finally decided to employ these techniques. So, it was a combination of having the data to support these techniques and being in a “receptive” state of mind. (Just having data isn’t enough you have to have a receptive audience (sic)).
 
James Mason – They went from the germination of the idea to add a college of engineering to approval of their new programs in 13 months. They did have science programs (some of which had engineering faculty). They presented a data driven rationale that was supported by the upper administration. The administration put together a committee that consisted of faculty from across campus (not just those who had proposed this idea) so that when it came time to get approvals they already had broad-based campus support. The key enablers of this were a risk supportive [sic] environment, an assessment driven environment, and this new unit was not organizationally tied to other entities on campus. (You need broad based support but you also need support at the upper level of the administration).
 
University of Wisconsin-Madison – They developed a new degree program where they took their existing nuclear engineering and engineering mechanics and designed a new engineering physics degree program. They surveyed the literature and existing engineering physics programs for state-of-the-art in these programs. They wanted to develop a sense of community among the students in this new program.  When the program had a small number of students this was easy. As it grew they begin to lose some of this. The program has a four-semester research seminar sequence (one in each year of the program). They had been meeting each of the seminars separately. Instead they combined into one so that all students were together during this class. They changed the format to a 10-minute taped presentation and then active and cooperative learning in the rest of the period. This has led to strong peer mentoring and community in these majors. (Change evolves so you need to look for opportunities as they arise  (or something similar))
 
MSU – We had been concerned about retention for some time and had examined the national literature in this area. In order to answer local questions about why MSU students in particular were leaving we had conducted a study of our students who had left engineering. They had indicated that they were leaving because they didn’t feel as if they belonged.  As we were seeking ways to build community we were approached by housing to provide value-added to some of our older dorms by adding learning communities. So, they were willing to provide free rooms for mentors in the community in return for us doing this program. Through this partnership we were able to start this program with very few resources. (Take advantage of resource opportunities; When considering engineering education change, think of the whole learning environment, not just the classroom experience).
 
UMass Lowell – Through a grant opportunity they started a program to try and have each engineering student exposed to a service learning opportunity. They were able to successfully implement this program because they took on a “start small rather than not at all” approach. In addition, they built on existing programs (an assistive learning technology program and an existing program in Peru) that were already in place to give them a starting point, taking an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach. (Start small rather than not at all; build on existing strengths)

 

6.7. How could we best deliver professional development to facilitate academic change among engineering faculty?

 

Using group brainstorming a number of different potential instructional designs were proposed by the participants to support delivery of engineering leadership change initiatives. Participants suggested various alternatives, engaging in a discussion of the pros and cons of each.  Following discussion, participants were requested to indicate their level of support for each potential design.  Placement of a red dot indicated no support; yellow dots indicated moderate support, and green dots full support of the alternative. The potential instructional designs and level of support are reflected in Table 3.

 

 

 

 

8. How can we sustain change?

 

Based on readings provided to participants, 10 factors that related to the success (or failure) of any change initiative were identified:

§                                  Strong leadership

§                                  Institutional commitment

§                                  Personal ownership

§                                  Funding/budgets

§                                  Visibility

§                                  Shared change purpose

§                                  Realistic targets/goals

§                                  Schedules/timing

§                                  Engagement

§                                  Measureable benefits

Each of the sustainability factors were printed on notecards and a set was distributed to each group of participants. The groups were to determine how each factor was related to the others. Using Brassard and Ritter’s (1994) interrelationship diagraph technique, each group discussed the factors and determined whether a factor was a driver or an outcome.  After putting the notecards in a circle on a sheet of poster paper, participants were asked to draw arrows between each pair of words until they had compared every possible pair. Outgoing arrows are considered drivers (D) and incoming arrows are considered outcomes (O).  After each group had completed the pairing technique that resulted in a diagraph, the scores were aggregated to create a weighted interrelationship diagraph. Items with the highest O scores are key outcomes. Items with the highest D scores are considered key drivers in a change process (see Table 4 below).

Results indicated that the key driver (D) for sustaining change was overwhelmingly, strong leadership. The next strongest drivers were:

§                                  Setting realistic targets or goals

§                                  Funding

§                                  Institutional commitment

 

The key outcomes (O) of these drivers were

§                                  Powerful engagement

§                                  Visibility

§                                  Schedule/timing

Funding, institutional commitment and shared change purpose were considered both drivers and outcomes necessary for sustained change.  It is important to note that not every group made paired comparisons for every factor. Some participants argued that some factors had no relationship with the other. Others felt that some factors were both drivers and outcomes, and since they were not allowed to make the arrow going both ways, they simply chose not to connect some factors.  Overall, there was fairly strong agreement across groups that strong leaders who garner funding and set realistic targets and goals were most likely to engage faculty, and enhance institutional commitment, personal ownership and visibility for the change they were trying to sustain.  A shared change purpose along with measureable benefits while considered important were not seen as the strongest drivers or outcomes.

 

Key Drivers

Leadership (D=26)

Realistic Target/Goal (D=15)

Funding (D=14)

Institutional Commitment (D=14)

Key Outcomes

Engagement (O=19)

Visibility (O=16)

Schedule/Timing (O=15)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. What are some Quick Wins and Long-term Goals?

At the conclusion of the symposium, participants were asked to provide two examples of quick wins or short-term gains they would pursue immediately upon return to their respective institutions as well as two examples of long-term goals they would pursue over the next six to twelve months at their respective institutions. 

Participants identified a number of goals for change leadership development and engagement.  A summary of the general types of goals and strategies participants planned to implement upon their return are listed below.  Typical quick wins involved gathering and identifying human and non-human resources and information, initiating communication and community with key individuals, and disseminating information via websites or short workshops. Long-term goals typically involved pursuit of additional funding, instructional changes (e.g., curricular, service-learning, mentoring), longer-term leadership development, and garnering of support.

Quick Wins

§                                  Identify and share existing resources (e.g. literature, workshops, programs)

§                                  Strategic informal conversations

§                                  Build targeted relationships (e.g. key administrators, change agents)

§                                  Form local community (e.g. regular meetings, lunches)

§                                  Evaluate and develop coursework

§                                  Engage in strategic communication – formal and informal with students, faculty, and administrators

§                                  Deliver short workshops

§                                  Develop a resource website

§                                  Survey stakeholders

§                                  Review university, college, and department strategic plans

§                                  Plan campus approach

§                                  Identify characteristics of change leader

Long-Term Goals

§                                  Submit funding proposals

§                                  Identify & cultivate change leaders

§                                  Develop team/community to lead change

§                                  Develop model for innovative culture

§                                  Develop & deliver training focused on necessary KSAs

§                                  Identify change opportunities

§                                  Contribute to institutional strategic plan

§                                  Build team commitment to strategic plan

§                                  Gain administrative support

§                                  Re-examine curriculum

§                                  Design change leadership course

§                                  Improve student mentoring

§                                  Improve job placement

§                                  Develop and train faculty for alternative instructional delivery

§                                  Partner with undergraduate advisors on retention strategies

§                                  Develop teaching exchanges and co-teaching opportunities

§                                  Train faculty on service learning

Examine student experience