• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Global hr forum2006-gary_gabriele-engineering education activities of the national science foundation
 

Global hr forum2006-gary_gabriele-engineering education activities of the national science foundation

on

  • 512 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
512
Views on SlideShare
512
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Global hr forum2006-gary_gabriele-engineering education activities of the national science foundation Global hr forum2006-gary_gabriele-engineering education activities of the national science foundation Presentation Transcript

    • Engineering Education Activities of the National Science Fo ndation Foundation Dr. Gary A. Gabriele Dean, Dean College of Engineering Villanova University
    • Outline • NSF and Engineering Directorate • Research Centers • Engineering Education
    • NSF Overview
    • The Origin of NSF Established in 1950 by NSF Act y Only Agency Authorized to Provide Funding for Research Across All Science and Engineering (S&E) Disciplines NSF Funds Best S&E Proposals (Projects Most Likely to Create New knowledge)
    • Values – Guiding Principles • Merit review of awards by experts • Promoting diversity and broadening participation • Integration of education and research g • Supporting research and education activities to address societal needs • Openness and information sharing
    • NSF Mission – Vision - Goals To promote the progress of science; to advance the national Mission health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense. d f Enabling the nation’s future through discovery, learning, and Vision innovation. innovation Strategic Organizational People Ideas Tools Goals Excellence Large Facilities Fundamental Infrastructure and science and instrumentation Individuals Human Capital Investment engineering Federally funded Institutions Business Processes Categories Centers research and Collaboration Technologies and Tools Capability development centers Enhancement Polar Tools, Facilities, and Logistics.
    • NSF Strategic g Investment Goals People – A diverse, competitive and globally engaged U.S. diverse competitive, US workforce of scientists, engineers, technologists, and well- prepared citizens. citizens Ideas – Discovery across the frontier of science and engineering, connected to learning, innovation, and service to society. Tools - Broadly accessible, state-of-the-art science and engineering facilities, tools, and other infrastructure that g g , , enable discovery, learning, and innovation. Organizational Excellence – An agile innovative agile, organization that fulfills its mission through leadership in state of the art state-of-the-art business practices.
    • National Science Foundation Office of the National Science Board Inspector General Staff Offices Director Di t Directorate for Directorate for Computer and Directorate for Polar and Integrative Biological Information Education and Antarctic Activities Sciences Science and Human Programs (MRI, STC) Engineering Resources Directorate for Directorate for Social, SBIR/STTR Directorate for Directorate for Mathematical Behavioral, Engineering g g Geosciences and Physical and Economic Sciences Sciences
    • FY 2006 Major Investments • N ti l N t h l IInitiative National Nanotechnology iti ti • Networking and Information Technology Research and Development • Cyberinfrastructure • Human and Social Dynamics
    • Engineering E i i Directorate Overview Di t t O i
    • Directorate for Engineering g g FY 2007 Office of the Assistant Director Senior Advisor Deputy Assistant Director Nanotechnology (OAD) Crosscutting Areas Disciplinary Areas Emerging Frontiers g g Chemical, Bioengineering, , g g, in Research and Environmental, and Innovation Transport Systems (EFRI) (CBET) Engineering Civil, Mechanical, Education and and Manufacturing Centers Innovation (EEC) (CMMI) Industrial Electrical, Innovation and Communications Partnerships and Cyber Systems (IIP) (ECCS)
    • ENG and NSF Investments FY 2005 Indirect & Indirect & ENG Fringe 27.20% Fringe 24.9252% NSF Other 40.70% Other 47.8564% Graduate Students Graduate 10.4686% Students 0% 14.70% Post Doc Senior & Other Senior Personnel Personn Post Doc & 8.7737% Prof Other Prof 5.30% el 7.9761% 12.10% 12 10% Other includes: direct costs (subcontracts, materials and supplies, consultant services), permanent equipment, travel, other personnel, etc.
    • Industry University Industry-University Interactions • I/UCRC • ERC • Engineering Education
    • Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers • The I/UCRC program develops long term partnerships long-term among industry, academe, and government. • The Th centers are catalyzed by a small i t t l db ll investment f t t from th the National Science Foundation (NSF) and are primarily supported by industry center members, with NSF taking a supporting role in y y , g pp g their development and evolution. • Each center is established to conduct research that is of interest to both the industry and the center. • Minimum of $300 000 of industry support is needed from at $300,000 needed, least six member companies.
    • I/UCRC Support $30.00M $30.0M $22.70M $22.5M $15.0M $8.70M $7.30M $7.5M $3.80M $ $2.70M $0.43M $0.0M Sources of Support NSF/EEC Industry State University Other Federal Non-Federal Other Cash
    • Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers • Advanced Electronics (5 centers) • Advanced Manufacturing (2) • Advanced Materials (7) • Biotechnology (4) • Civil Infrastructure Systems (3) • Information and Communications (5+4) • Energy and Environment ( gy (3+1) ) The University of • Fabrication & Processing Technology (9) Iowa (lead • Health and Safety (3) institution) d i tit ti ) and • Quality, Reliability, & Maintenance (2) the University of Texas at Austin • Systems Design and Simulation (1)
    • Engineering R E i i Research h Centers C t
    • Guiding Goal G G Enable transforming systems technologies and educate a globally competitive and diverse engineering workforce in an integrated, interdisciplinary research environment where academe and i d t i t h d d industry join in partnership to advance fundamental engineering knowledge, enabling technology, and engineered systems.
    • ERC K F Key Features Emerging engineered system, potential to spawn new industry or t transform current practice; f t ti Strategic plans to realize the research, education and diversity goals; Research integrates cross-disciplinary fundamental research with research to advance technology through proof-of-concept esea c o ad a ce ec o ogy oug p oo o co cep test beds to test theory in functioning systems; Strengthen diversity of engineering and scientific workforce; Partnership with industry and other practitioners; Education teams undergraduate and graduate students; Precollege outreach
    • Required I f t t R i d Infrastructure & Resources R Multi-institution Multi institution configuration Members of leadership team define and evolve the vision, implement th plans, and manage th center i l t the l d the t Cross-Disciplinary leadership, faculty and student teams that th t are di diverse i gender, race, and ethnicity in d d th i it Management systems to deploy the Center's resources to achieve its goals External advice from academic and industrial experts, p , Equipment, facilities, and laboratory space required to perform the research and education; headquarters space (required at full proposal stage) Institutional commitment to foster ERC culture and its diversity
    • ERC Program’s Diversity • Policy Operate with strategic plans that include goals milestones actions goals, milestones, and impacts to increase diversity at all levels to exceed national engineering-wide averages Form sustained partnerships with affiliated deans and department chairs to enable this enhancement Develop core partner or outreach connections with predominantly female and underrepresented-minority institutions Develop outreach connections with at l D l t h ti ith t least one LSAMP and one or t d more AGEP, TCUP, CREST awardees (long-term REUs and bridge fellowships) Operate diversity oriented REUs and pre-college programs focused on diversity involving teachers and students • In compliance with federal law, no quotas or set-asides based on gender race or ethnicity. No numerical goals can be used, quantification of impacts will be reported.
    • Effectiveness of ERC Concept p ERCs successfully integrated disciplinary to produce advances in knowledge enabling and systems level knowledge, systems-level technology ERCs have produced a wide range of courses, ERC h d d id f course materials, and degree programs/options advancing education in next-generation fields of technology ERCs ha e prod ced st dents whom 90% of their have produced students hom industrial supervisors find more effective than their single investigator single-investigator trained peers ERCs have provided benefit to 90% of their industrial partners and impacted the competitiveness of 68% of them
    • Engineered Systems are a Defining Feature of ERCs g Engineered systems provide a research and education experience that involves integrative complexity and technological realization Engineered systems integrate materials devices materials, devices, processes, components, control algorithms and/or other enabling elements to p g perform a well-defined function The complexity of the systems perspective includes the factors associated with its use in industry and society, including impacts on natural and societal systems as appropriate Proposal must provide ERC 3-Plane Strategic Plan diagram and 10-year milestone chart
    • ERC Strategic Framework Environment/Marketplace It’s not an ERC if you don’t have all y three Identify need Define System requirements and scope Integrate fundamental knowledge into enabling technology Develop insights from fundamental knowledge
    • ERC Education and Outreach Goals Develop a cross-disciplinary, team research culture Infuse ERC’s engineered systems research into the curriculum for students and practitioners Develop a new generation of leaders who are more effective in industry in a global economy y g y Increase the diversity of the engineering workforce through increased enrollment and outreach to predominantly minority institutions and NSF’s diversity awardees Attract young students to engineering, advance the skills of the technical workforce, etc., through outreach to pre- , , g p college teachers and their students
    • Support from all sources FY 2004 Millions $
    • Current Engineering Research Centers ngineering University of Illinois University of Michigan University of Michigan SUNY Buffalo Mid-America Earthquake Center Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems Wireless Integrated MicroSystems Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research University of Washington WA University of Massachusetts Engineered Biomaterials Collaborative Adaptive Sensing MN of the Atmosphere UC, Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Carnegie Mellon University Engineering Research Center NY MA Quality of Life Technology MI ERC CA IL University of Southern California Northeastern University MD Subsurface Sensing & Biomimetic MicroElectronic Systems CO KS VA Imaging Systems AZ TN Johns Hopkins University University of C lif i B k l U i it f California Berkeley Computer-Integrated S C t I t t d Surgical i l SC Synthetic Biology Systems & Technology GA Virginia Polytechnic Institute Power Electronic Systems University of Southern California Integrated Media Systems FL Clemson University Adv. Engineering of University of Arizona Colorado State University Fibers & Films Environmentally Benign ERC for Extreme Ultraviolet Semiconductor Manufacturing g Science & Technology Rutgers University Princeton University ERC for Structure Organic ERC on Mid-Infrared Technologies Composites University of Minnesota ERC in Compact and Efficient Georgia Institute of Technology Fluid Power Vanderbilt University Center for the Engineering Bioengineering Educational Technology of Living Tissue National Science Foundation
    • Possible Features of 3rd Generation ERCs to Respond to these Challenges Ramp up role for small firms in innovation inside ERCs Let proposing university/industry partnerships propose a membership structure that work f their sectors b hi h k for h i Provide US students with experiences collaborating with non-US universities from different cultures i iti f diff t lt Support collaboration through the cyberinfrastructure
    • Engineering Education
    • • Purpose: Engineering Coalitions • To dd T address i d t ’ call f graduates who are b tt prepared f current engineering industry’s ll for d t h better d for t i i practice, and to attract more women and minorities to engineering careers. • Started in 1990, reform by teams of schools for 10 years at $2 to 3 million dollars per year. • Together, these schools (4 yr and 2 yr) enrolled over thirty percent of the students who were studying engineering i th U S at th t ti t d i i i in the U.S. t that time. • Investment: $160 million total by the Directorate for Engineering • Assessment: • Helped to meet ABET 2000 criteria, • Accomplished some unique successes in some universities, • Developed some course/text materials, • “Cannot be said to be the comprehensive and systemic new model for engineering reform anticipated,
    • • Retention: R i • Coalitions: Key Findings • Coalitions schools saw 10-25% increases in the retention rate of first-year engineering students, with even greater increases for women and underrepresented minorities. • GPA’s increased and time to degree decreased. • No differences in graduate rates can be significantly attributed to gender. • Verbal SAT scores are negatively correlated with odds of graduating in • engineering. engineering • • Education/Curriculum: • Success with integration of the freshman curriculum to connect course material (math, chem, physics, English, and intro to engineering) to engineering practice. • Learning communities, where students form strong academic and social relationships is also key.
    • • ABET Purpose: Support dialogue about new ABET criteria (EC2000) and the (EC2000), training of evaluators to implement it. Are engineering graduates better prepared under the new ABET criteria? • Investment: $1 million by the Directorate for Engineering • Assessment: Penn State Center for the Study of Higher Education, in 2005, 2005 found: • Greater emphasis on and gains in student professional skills • More active l M i learning i • High levels of faculty support for continuous improvement • 2004 graduates are better prepared than their 1994 counterparts • However, found mixed results on the degree to which scholarship of teaching was valued i th f t hi l d in the faculty reward structure lt d t t
    • Centers for Teaching and Learning • Purpose: Advancing the scholarship of discovery regarding math, science and engineering undergraduate education through multidisciplinary research g g g g p y centers. Started in 2003. • Investment: $2 million/year for each of two centers. Co-funded by (1) the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (2) the Directorate for Resources, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and (3) the Directorate for Engineering. The Wisconsin-led center addresses learning and teaching across the fields of science, mathematics and engineering, and how to prepare future faculty. The Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE) at the University of Washington concentrates on engineering through cross institutional longitudinal research studies on learning to engineer focusing on the development of engineers from undergraduate education through p g g g entry into the engineering workforce, and targeted studies of core competencies and concepts central to engineering.
    • What we have learned so far far.. • Integrated curriculum which li k t engineering practice I t t d i l hi h links to i i ti enhances retention • Active learning especially in teams strengthens learning learning, teams, learning. • Socially relevant curriculum and service learning (e.g. EPICS, Engineers Without Borders ) especially attracts women and minorities. i iti • All techniques which accelerate the student’s ability to identify with the profession of engineering and construct the meaning of subject, are positive. • Further faculty development is needed for national dissemination of innovative curriculum.
    • Lesson inLearned s • Large investments reform in the 1990’s 1990 yielded local change and some national impact. impact • We need deeper understanding of the p g engineering education system and how to change it. g • We need robust research to build the scholarship of disco er aro nd engineering discovery around education. • Research and well constructed interventions are not sufficient, leadership is key to sufficient achieving progress.
    • What seems to be clear.. clear Knowledge and h K l d d human capital h it l have b become k d i i key driving forces in a global economy. All countries, developing and industrialized, have a shortfall in S&E talent. Education has become one of the highest priorities for developing countries. Competition for S&E talent in the future is going to be a major global battleground. battleground Remarks by Arden Bement at NSB Workshop on Engineering Education
    • Thank you.