The conference "Realizing the New Paradigm for Engineering Education" took place June 3-6, 1998, in Baltimore, Maryland. The aim of the conference was to provide a forum for discussion of several issues concerning the changing face of engineering education. One specific goal was increased awareness of and involvement in Systemic Engineering Education Reform (SEER). The preface to the conference Proceedings says "The conference explored what an individual institution does to change from its present approach to the new engineering education, one that seeks to develop students as emerging professionals with the motivation, capability, and knowledge base for life-long learning; one that helps students see the whole world and sense the coupling among seemingly disparate fields; one that incorporates a diversity of backgrounds and approaches; and one that enhances student capability to build connections between the world of learning and the world beyond." Representatives of all areas of engineering attended the conference. Some of those in attendance had already been working toward the new paradigm in engineering education in their universities; others were interested in implementing these new developments in their own schools.

This issue of Gateway Vistas includes summaries of various presentations and of the workshops conducted at the conference, excerpted from the Proceedings.

John W. Prados

In his article, Prados discusses the background for engineering education's current reform movement; outlines a major National Science Foundation initiative to support that movement; and suggests the principal issues on which the conference attendees should and should not focus. He begins by outlining the four major forces driving engineering education toward the 21^st century: engineering employment's shift from defense to commercial competition; emerging information technology; a constantly changing work environment; and finally, integrated populations.

The principal task at the conference was to identify effective strategies to bring about such systemic engineering education reform in US engineering schools. Necessary characteristics of the New Engineering Education Paradigm include an engineering faculty dedicated to developing emerging professionals; a curriculum that maintains a solid mathematical and scientific knowledge base; an educational structure that integrates subject matter; educational methods that stress active learning; a strong emphasis on communication, teamwork, and group problem-solving skills; a diverse student population; and interaction with industry. Obstacles to avoid in the paradigm include resistance by academic institutions to change; faculty governance procedures; teacher-centered education; an academic culture focusing on individual achievement; faculty reward systems which discourage educational innovation; and the atmosphere at institutions which impedes industry collaboration.

To achieve these changes, current drivers for change must be employed. These drivers include industrial advisory boards in engineering colleges and departments, engineering professional societies, the Industry-University-Government Roundtable for Enhancing Engineering Education (IUGREEE), private foundations, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and developments in information technology and cognitive science.

William W. Durgin and Edward A. Parrish

Durgin and Parrish outline the history, goals, and future of Worcester Polytechnic Institute's PLAN. The PLAN has been in effect since 1971, when WPI was predominately an engineering school. Curricular changes at WPI grew out of dissatisfaction with traditional engineering education and concern that institutional direction was lacking. Among its components, it provided a fundamental departure from the traditional elements of technical education, including the achievement of competence rather than the accumulation of credits; individual freedom and responsibility in planning the program of study; a large component of project and independent study learning; and emphasis on education as a cooperative venture between faculty and students. Students were given the freedom and the responsibility for their own

courses of study in a non-prescriptive environment with a focus on outcomes. The curriculum was largely project-based with the projects drawn from the "real world." Students necessarily learned to deal with open-ended problems, to learn on an as-needed basis, and to take responsibility for their own progress. The PLAN dramatically increased the advising responsibility of the faculty and was believed to be more cost-efficient.

Presently, the WPI PLAN's degree requirements include three projects, distribution requirements, and some ancillary elements. The projects are the Humanities "Sufficiency" Project, the "Interactive Qualifying Project" (IQP), and the "Major Qualifying Project" (MQP).

Barbara M. Olds

In her article, Olds provides two excellent examples for engineering education reform at the Colorado School of Mines: the Engineering Practices Introductory Course Sequence (EPICS), and the McBride Honors Program. With help from an Exxon Education grant, the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) started EPICS in 1982. EPICS has changed over the 15 years it has been in existence, but it remains a two-year sequence required of all first- and second-year students. The program focuses on introducing students to design and engineering practice by having them solve open-ended problems and develop communication skills. Students work in teams to solve these problems for outside clients, usually small businesses and non-profit organizations. Freshman projects have included designing playground equipment for disabled children at a local school, and designing solar ovens for use in Mali, Africa. Sophomore projects are more sophisticated technically. Usually a group of 4-5 students works for an entire semester on a problem for an outside client. These projects are usually sponsored by government entities, and include such undertakings as helping small municipalities develop plans to address Americans with Disabilities requirements.

The Guy T. McBride, Jr. Honors Program is a 27 semester-hour sequence of seminars and other activities with the primary goal of providing a select number of engineering and applied science students the opportunity to cross the boundaries of their technical expertise and to gain the sensitivity to prove, project, and test the moral and social implications of the future professional judgments and activities, not only for the particular organizations with which they will be involved, but also for the nation and the world.

In addition to the prepared presentations, the conference also offered three workshop sessions. The conference participants were divided into five breakout groups, and in each of the three sessions, they focused on these questions:

1. How can we use the challenges of the engineering workplace, ABET Engineering Criteria 2000, and the experiences of others to create change at my institution?
2. How can we use information technologies and the experiences of others to create change at my institution?
3. What can we do to implement engineering education reform, and what is my part in doing this?

Building on the questions provided, along with the conference's general atmosphere of reform in engineering education, an important question came out of one group: How does the engineering education community move beyond the small fraction of faculty who are change agents to include the next 60%? The collaborative answer from all of the groups was, in effect, "Create a culture for change." In order to achieve this culture, key players and key resources must be targeted and utilized.

Among the key players are faculty, deans and campus administration, students and parents, NSF, and ABET. "Faculty must become the main champions for changing the way that we do engineering education." Suggestions for affecting change include serving on committees, a faculty development program, and frequent workshops and seminars. To encourage the proliferation of these projects, grants should be offered, teaching portfolios can be implemented, and research should be considered a valid scholarly endeavor. The Dean of Engineering plays an important role in reform, and should be involved in the earliest planning stages. Students, who in some cases possess a more sound knowledge of technology than their professors, can be assets in the drive toward reforming engineering education. NSF grants provide an engineering college with the opportunity for advancement and change. The money provided by NSF should inspire campus resources to contribute as well. ABET causes major players in undergraduate engineering education to realize the need for change, along with the need for assessment in engineering activities.

Key resources include experiences of others, lessons learned and problems solved, information resources, assessment, information technology, and instructional materials. Pioneers in the engineering field, those who have already brought change and innovation to their own schools, are major sources of inspiration and guidance for those institutions who have only just begun to work toward reform. Problems they have encountered and the solutions they came up with can serve as a guide for those who have started on the path to change. Along the same lines, lessons and solutions teach us to be patient, to be a good listener, to be a messenger, and to be flexible. Information resources such as publishers, students, university staff, NSF, and the World Wide Web are invaluable to an institution moving toward a new paradigm. By learning from what these resources have already done, the university new to reform can see the decisions which helped and the decisions which hindered. Assessment can be an important tool; comparing current results with what has been done before and by others provides a model to use in the reformation process. Information technology gives us the opportunity to reach the growth areas of continuing education, life-long-learning, and non-traditional students. We also can experience different learning styles, thereby enhancing the quality of learning. Finally, by seeking out instructional tools instead of waiting for them to be delivered, the quality of the materials will be improved. The materials need to be made available to a wider range of institutions.