The Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering Education Reform

As this century draws to a close, the environment for engineering practice is changing dramatically and irreversibly, impelled by the shift from defense to commercial competition as a major driver for engineering employment, the impact of exploding information technology on education and practice, the globalization of both manufacturing and service delivery, and the imperatives of environmental protection and sustainable development. Employers emphasize that success as an engineer increasingly requires, in addition to strong technical capability, skills in communication and persuasion, ability to lead and work effectively as a member of a team, understanding of the non-technical forces that profoundly affect engineering decisions, and a commitment to lifelong learning. Multiple reports over the past twelve years (1-24) show remarkable consistency in recommending these attributes for engineering graduates of the future.

Acquiring such characteristics is unlikely with traditional, lecture-based instruction. A new engineering education paradigm is needed, characterized by active, project based learning; horizontal and vertical integration of subject matter; introduction of mathematical and scientific concepts in the context of application; close interaction with industry; broad use of information technology; and a faculty devoted to developing emerging professionals as mentors and coaches.

The Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering Education Reform described in this announcement seeks truly innovative approaches to break through this implementation barrier. In view of the broad availability of innovative educational models and materials already developed, it is expected that many projects will focus on the critical evaluation, dissemination, and institutionalization of such models and materials. At the same time, NSF values the rich experience and insight of the engineering education community and therefore does not wish to place strict constraints on the types of projects proposed. Accordingly, this program is outcomes-based and seeks proposals for effective actions to achieve specified Action Agenda Goals in ways that will affect significant numbers of engineering students.

Action Agenda Goals

The goals of the Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering Education Reform, to be addressed in proposals, are as follows.

Create a learning environment in which it can be clearly demonstrated that the faculty who participate in the engineering program: view themselves as mentors dedicated to nurturing and developing students; develop and use advanced educational materials founded in learning theory and cognitive sciences research that promote student-based learning; provide learning experiences that meet the needs of students with different learning styles; integrate their education and research roles; stress active, collaborative learning with less dependence on lectures; integrate subject matter by showing relationships from the beginning of the student's program; utilize emerging information technologies and network communications; and develop students' capability and motivation to engage in lifelong learning.

Create engineering curricula, through a combination of learning experiences not limited to traditional course structures, that maintain a solid mathematical and scientific knowledge base and also: integrate subject matter by introducing fundamental principles in the context of applications; integrate the development of teamwork, communication, and group project definition and problem-solving skills in learning experiences throughout the curriculum; address issues of cost and timeliness, quality, social and environmental concerns, health and safety, etc., in the context of engineering practice; recognize diverse learning styles and career goals; increase opportunities for international experience, possibly taking advantage of distance learning technologies; and integrate research and education

Create an environment for the overall engineering education program that increases the successful participation of underrepresented groups in engineering through effective strategies for recruitment and for enhancing retention and progression to graduation; develops effective linkages with elementary and secondary education, two-year colleges, dual-degree programs, and other transfer institutions; maintains regular, well-planned interaction with industry; supports creation of a network of engineering education leaders; creates, maintains, and disseminates a body of evaluation findings; increases the incentives to department chairs, deans, and institutional administration to reward faculty who develop or implement successful innovations in teaching and learning; and reduces the time and cost required to earn an engineering degree.

Special emphasis will be placed on multiple goal achievement, firm institutional commitments to integrate the project results into ongoing educational programs, and the extent to which proposed projects go well beyond course development and modest curricular changes.

Action Agenda projects will vary in size, organization, and theme. The following are only a few examples of the types of projects that might be supported.

All proposals must address, as a minimum, the following points.

• Results of prior educational projects funded by NSF for this principal investigator
• Survey of relevant educational literature, including applicable innovations in teaching and learning in engineering, basic sciences, and mathematics, explaining how such innovations will be utilized in the proposed program.
• How the proposed innovations fits into the institution’s current engineering curricula and expected impact of the innovation: For example, if the proposal involves new or modified courses, please include a table with the following information displayed in columns for each year of the project: Institution/Department; Course Number and Title; Level (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate); Required or Elective; Number of Students Expected to Enroll per Term; Frequency of Course Offering; Brief Explanation of the Contribution of the Innovation to the Student’s Educational Experience.
• How the proposed innovations relate to existing NSF or other federally funded (e.g., FIPSE) projects for the engineering education programs at the institution.
• Evaluation of Project Results: All projects funded under the Action Agenda must employ modern evaluative models to monitor and assess systematically the achievement of Action Agenda goals. This evaluation must facilitate identification of successes and subsequent replication elsewhere. Evaluations should concentrate on long-term student retention and use of learning in subsequent courses and in employment. A major criterion in proposal evaluation will be the strength of the evaluation system proposed. This system must include, as a minimum, measurable objectives (for example, objectives for student learning, retention, and progression to graduation in engineering); procedures to measure their achievement; and a system for monitoring the progress of the project in relation to these measures. In order to develop effective measures for evaluation, cooperation with persons experienced in educational assessment and evaluation is strongly encouraged. Reliable evaluation usually requires multiple measures. NSF resource materials are available to assist institutions in developing and implementing a sound educational assessment program, including reports of the EHR Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication (25), and engineering education evaluation workshops funded by the ENG Division of Engineering Education and Centers (26). The Foundation may also request the cooperation of individual projects in the collection of specific data via survey or other mechanisms to enable evaluation of the combined effect of its engineering education programs.
• Dissemination of Project Results: To achieve the desired national impact, project results must be evaluated and then disseminated widely within the engineering education community. Plans for dissemination of project results, including the probable size of the audience to be influenced and the potential for lasting impact, are given significant weight in the review of proposals. A dissemination plan should include identification of the target audience, including its nature and probable size; a description of the information and material to be disseminated; the means of dissemination; and procedures for determining the success of the dissemination effort. Preference will be given to proposals that include provisions for active participation by the recipients and follow-up. Proposers are encouraged to describe existing or planned arrangements with commercial vendors of educational materials. Multiple dissemination approaches are strongly encouraged.
• A milestone chart showing development, pilot studies, implementation, evaluation, dissemination, and completion of deliverables.

The deadline for proposal submission is 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time, March 31, 1998. In selecting awards for this competition, the Foundation will be assisted by reviewers who have a strong interest in engineering education drawn from the academic and engineering communities. Proposals will be evaluated based on the NSF Merit Review Criteria as applied to this program. Additional questions to be addressed under the two principal Criteria are:

1. To what degree does the proposed project address the Action Agenda Goals set forth in the program announcement?
2. How well conceived and organized is the proposed project?
3. What are the demonstrated capabilities of the project team, their understanding of the issues involved in systemic engineering education reform, their access to needed resources, and their commitment to the accomplishment of the effort?
4. Is there a robust evaluation system that demonstrates achievement of the Action Agenda Goals?

1. What is the likelihood of sustained impact on educational processes, diversity of graduates, and institutional culture after NSF funding ends?
2. What is the probable impact of the project results and the proposed dissemination process on the broader engineering education community?

The award period will normally be one, two, or three years. Award size is expected to range from $100,000 to $600,000 per year for up to three years.

Awardees will be expected to participate in an annual, two-day grantees conference for the Action Agenda program in the Washington, DC, area. Therefore, travel funds should be budgeted for these meetings.

Proposal Guidelines and Format

Inquires should be directed to the Action Agenda Program Coordinator

Dr. Ernest Smerdon (beginning January 1, 1998)
Dr. John W. Prados (until December 31, 1997)
Senior Education Associate
Engineering Education and Centers Division
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 585
Arlington, VA 22230

Telephone: (703) 306-1380; Fax: (703) 306-0326
e-mail: esmerdon@nsf.gov
e-mail: jprados@nsf.gov

1. "Engineering Education and Practice in the United States," National Academy Press, 1985.

 

2. "Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education," National Science Board, NSB 86-100, 1986.

 

3. "Quality of Engineering Education," Final Report of the Quality of Engineering Education Project, American Society for Engineering Education, September 1986.

 

4. "Engineering Education Answers the Challenges of the Future," Proceedings of the National Congress on Engineering Education, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., November 1986.

 

5. "A National Action Agenda for Engineering Education," Report of an ASEE Task Force (E. E. David, Jr., Chair), American Society for Engineering Education, 1987.

 

6. "Workshop on Engineering - April 1988," Report of the NSF Disciplinary Workshops on Undergraduate Education, pp. 51-55, NSF 89-3, National Science Foundation, 1989.

 

7. Karl Willenbrock et al., "Imperatives in Undergraduate Engineering Education: Issues and Actions," Report of an NSF Ad Hoc Task Force, August 1989 ("the Belmont Conference").

    

8. "Education and Continuing Development of the Civil Engineer," Proceedings of an ASCE National Forum, 17-20 April 1990, American Society for Civil Engineers, 1990.

 

9. Roland W. Schmidt, Letter Report to E. W. Ernst of an NSF-Sponsored NAE Workshop on "Engineering, Engineers, and Engineering Education in the 21st Century," 9 May 1990.

 

10. "An Engineering Look Forward: New Decade, New Century, New Millennium," Proceedings of the 1990 ABET Annual Meeting, 17-18 October 1990, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc.

 

11. "America's Academic Future," Report of the Presidential Young Investigator Colloquium on U.S. Engineering, Mathematics, and Science Education for the Year 2010 and Beyond, NSF 91-150, National Science Foundation, 1992.

 

12. "Engineering Education Issues: Report on Survey of Opinions by Engineering Deans and Employers of Engineering Graduates on First Professional Degree," NSPE Professional Engineers in Education Sustaining University Program, NSPE Publication 3059, National Society of Professional Engineers, November 1992.

 

13. Joseph Bordogna, Eli Fromm, and Edward Ernst, "Engineering Education: Innovation Through Integration," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 3-8 (1993)

 

14. Harris, Eugene M. DeLoatch, William R. Grogan, Irene C. Peden, and John R. Whinnery, "Journal of Engineering Education Round Table: Reflections on the Grinter Report," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 69-94 (1994) (includes as an Appendix the Grinter Report, issued in September, 1955).

 

15. "Engineering Education for a Changing World," Report of a Joint Project of the ASEE Engineering Deans Council and Corporate Roundtable, American Society for Engineering Education, 1994.

 

16. "Industry 2000: Technical Vitality Through Continuing Education," Report of a workshop conducted by the IEEE Educational Activities Board in May 1994, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 1995.

 

17. "Restructuring Engineering Education: A Focus on Change," Report of an NSF Workshop, NSF 95-65, National Science Foundation, 1995.

 

18. "Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System," Report of the NRC Board on Engineering Education, National Research Council, 1995.

 

19. John H. McMasters and James D. Lang, "Enhancing Engineering and Manufacturing Education: Industry Needs, Industry Roles," presented at the 1995 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 25-28 1995, American Society for Engineering Education.

 

20. "Systemic Engineering Education Reform: An Action Agenda," Report of a Workshop Convened by the NSF Directorate for Engineering, NSF 96-63, National Science Foundation, 1996.

 

21. "Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology," Report of the Review of Undergraduate Education by the Advisory Committee to the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources, NSF 96-139, National Science Foundation, 1996.

 

22. Sir John Daniel, "Why Universities Need Technology Strategies," Change, July-August 1997, pp. 11-17.

 

23. Joseph Bordogna, "Making Connections: The Role of Engineers and Engineering Education," The Bridge, Spring 1997, pp. 11-16

 

24. "Engineering Criteria 2000," 2nd Edition, Engineering Accreditation Commission, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc, Baltimore, MD, 1997

 

25. Floraline Stevens et al., "User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation: Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education," NSF Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communications, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, NSF 93-152, National Science Foundation, 1993 (reprinted in 1996).

 

26. Gloria M. Rogers and Jean K. Sando, "Stepping Ahead: An Assessment Plan Development Guide," Report of an NSF-Supported Workshop on Outcomes Assessment, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN, 1996.

 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency, created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). Its aim is to promote and advance scientific and engineering progress in the United States (U.S.). The Foundation is also committed to ensuring the nation's supply of scientists, engineers, and science educators.

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities and other research and/or education organizations in all parts of the U.S. NSF receives approximately 30,000 proposals annually for new or renewal support for research, graduate and postdoctoral fellowships, and math/science/engineering education projects, and makes approximately 9,000 new awards. These typically are awarded to universities, colleges, academic consortia, non-profit institutions and small businesses. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, certain oceanographic vessels and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry and U.S. participation in international scientific efforts.

NSF is generally structured by fields of science and engineering and science education but also considers activities that cross traditional fields by coordinating review across the Foundation. The NSF's staff is assisted by advisors, primarily from the scientific and engineering communities, who serve on panels or as mail reviewers of proposals. NSF Program Officers who are experts in the field or area of the proposal are responsible for award recommendations.

Grantees are wholly responsible for conducting their project activities and preparing the results for publication. Thus the Foundation does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation.

NSF welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists, engineers and educators. The Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities and persons with disabilities to participate fully in its programs. In accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from NSF.

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers as part of the application review process; to applicant institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies needing information as part of the review process or in order to coordinate programs; and to another Federal agency, court or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as NSF reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Gail A. McHenry
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230

Activities described in this publication are in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 47.041, Engineering; 47.070, Computer and Information Science and Engineering; 47.076, Education and Human Resources.