March 2007

Case: THE F.W.OLINCOLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

“Olin College prepares future leaders through an innovative engineering education that bridges science and technology, enterprise, and society. Skilled in independent learning and the art of design, our graduates will seek opportunities and take initiative to make a positive difference in the world.” Mission Statement, F.W.OlinCollege of Engineering, Founded 1997

The lead up to the new millennium witnessed many professions deliberatingthe impact of social, economic and political trends on the practice of their discipline in the future. Concernsabout the roles that professionals would play in a ‘globalizing’ world inevitably led to the recognition that the preparation of the trainees in their respective fields would need to change. Regardless of the discipline examined, these discussions characteristically concluded that 1] the amassing knowledge in their field surpassed their ability to ‘teach’ it and would continue to expand as graduates entered the work force; 2] while learning of core discipline-specific concepts remained essential, graduates would need to be aware of multiple factors (social, economic, political, etc) that impacted their field as well as their ability to be effective in bringing their work to fruition; 3] projects led by the solo expert was rapidly being replaced by multidisciplinary teams requiring social and communication skills to be effective. As professionals embarked on reforming their educational programs, the challenges they confronted were ‘How to incorporate and advance essential skills and competencies while insuring that core knowledge and concepts of their field were learned?’ and ‘How to insure that graduates of newly designed programs exhibited the newly defined attitudes, skills and competencies that were needed to practice in the real world?’

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Academy of Engineering’s(NAE) Committee on Engineering Education (CEE) embarked on such analyses and identified multiple sociopolitical and economic trends that would undoubtedly alter the practice of engineering in the future. Among the ‘opportunities and challenges’they reported were[1]:

  • Expanding global population with steadily aging demographic and demand for diversity in the engineering workforce
  • Need for ‘sustainability’ despite population growth, industrialization, urbanization and environmental degradation
  • Increasing attention to managed risk and assessment with regard to public privacy, safety and security
  • Globalization of economic systems and interconnectedness of its component parts
  • Rapidly accelerating advances in technology affecting informationretrieval and management, communication science, biological materials, and processes in engineering
  • Growing concerns about the social and political implications of rapid technological advances and their equitable application
  • Diminishing half-life of engineering knowledge in many fields
  • Increasing complexity, uncertainty, and interdisciplinary foundations of engineered systems
  • Expanding growth of the ‘services-based’ component of the economy
  • Growing number of engineers working in nontraditional areas that require technological competence and/or fluency (ex. management, finance, marketing, public policy, etc.)

Page-1

March 2007

  • Emerging employment opportunities in small and medium-sized companies and an emphasis on entrepreneurialism
  • Expanding role of technology in the work of engineers and the opportunities to incorporate it into their education

[1] Educating the Engineerof 2020 (see website

The NAECEE concluded that addressing these issuescouldexpand the roles that engineers play in the future society but it also implieda significant expansion ofthe skills and competencies traditionally associated with engineering education. To better prepare the graduates of engineering education programs for future practice, the NAE recommended thatcolleges of engineering reconsider their educational programs, both content and methods. In addition to strong analytical skills, the ideal engineer of 2020wouldneed to demonstrate: “creativity, effective communication, proficiency in business and management, leadership skills, dynamism, agility, resilience and flexibility, and a commitment to life long learning.”

As professional engineering organizationsdeliberated their strategy, the F.W. Olin Foundationmade a dramatic decision to substantively forward the action in engineering education. The Olin Foundation was philanthropic organization that had generously supported engineering and science education since it was established in 1938. Typically, it provided support for building construction and equipment at private colleges and universities throughout the US. The Foundation had initially exploredthe utility of endowing a new and innovative program at an existing academic institution, butits advisors and board concluded that the most effective route to achieve its goals would be to found a new and independent college of engineering. It subsequently committed over $400 million to establish the Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering.

Olin College’s founding president,appointed in 1999,was charged by the Foundation to “explore, test and implement an innovative engineering curricula and to address what the National Science Foundation and others had identified as systematic issues with existing engineering education.” President Miller framed the challenge as follows: “For decades corporate leaders have been calling for improvements in the ‘soft’ skills of engineering graduates. These include (1) increased development of communication and teaming skills; (2) greater consideration of the social, environmental, business, and political context of engineering, with particular emphasis on entrepreneurial thinking; (3) a shift from disciplinary thinking to interdisciplinary approaches; (4) improved student capacity for lifelong learning; and (5) emphasis on engineering practice and the process of design.” He also noted that engineering faced increasing difficulties in attracting students to the field and maintaining their interest. … “Currently, about half of all engineering freshmen in the U.S. do not graduate in this field. Among those who drop out, the most common reason cited is poor quality teaching. The study of engineering is widely regarded by students as dull, tedious, boring, and exceedingly challenging. It is rarely regarded by students as fun, exciting, creative, or rewarding.”

Richard Miller has proven to be a remarkable choice as the founding president of Olin. While personable, thoughtful and unflappable, one is struck by his firm determination to lead OlinCollege to (and keep it at) the cutting edge in engineering education. He and his faculty have enthusiastically pursued educational innovationstightly coupled with honest and transparent assessment. As President Miller sees it,

“Innovation and continuous improvement require certain cultural attitudes and commitments. First, an implicit humility is required to embrace the notion that improvement is always possible, and that we can always learn from others outside our community. Listening to those outside academia has not always been the strong suit of American higher education. In addition, continuous improvement is only possible if continuous assessment is employed to guide the process. We must be willing to expose ourselves to review and measurement, and to take the time to learn from our mistakes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, continuous improvement requires openness to change. “

“To embrace a new culture of continuous improvement and innovation requires a shift in attitudes relative to the mainstream in higher education. The ideal environment is one in which each member of the community is independently motivated to seek personal improvement. This internal motivation should cause individuals to take the initiative to continually seek feedback from others, to continually monitor metrics for personal improvement, and ultimately to be willing to occasionally make bold changes in actions and behaviors to produce a new outcome. Unfortunately, when assessment is imposed externally without the community commitment to improvement, the results are rarely desirable.” Richard Miller, “Observations on Efforts to Create a New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education in Engineering,”March 2006

The F.W. Olin Foundation gave President Miller and his team a free hand in designing the new college but it did lay downsomeground rulesfor the institution’s final form. As a result, from its founding, 1) there isno traditional tenure at Olin. 2) the school isnot structuredaroundtraditional academic departments or disciplines-physically or psychologically. Even faculty offices are arranged without regard to discipline. 3) All studentsreceive merit-based scholarships to cover the costs of tuition and living within a residential environment that promotes a community and ‘Olin culture’ deeply committed to a program of continuous improvement and innovation.

By the spring of 1999, President Miller had recruited Olin’s leadership team: a Provost, a VP for Innovation and Research, a VP for Administration and Finance, and a VP for External Relations and Enrollment. Olin’s administration recognized that the college’s success would hinge on the faculty it recruited to design the curriculum and the educational environment that would advance Olin’s goals. Hence, recruitment criteria reflected its desire to assemble a faculty who would model the qualities it hoped to promote in its graduates. The characteristics sought included:

  1. a passion for teaching, education, and a strong commitment to improving students’ lives
  2. strong evidence of creativity through research, publications, inventions, entrepreneurship, commercialization of technology, new course or curriculum developments, innovative pedagogy, etc
  3. evidence of integration of creativity into the classroom
  4. willingness to team, to accept others’ ideas, to partner, to lead, or to follow
  5. desire to stay current, and to reflect currency in teaching and in creative endeavors
  6. potential for ‘nationally visible achievements’ through any of the creativity channels above
  7. a willingness to take reasonable risks to make significant impact.

(from David Kerns, “Characteristics of Founding Faculty” September 1999)

No doubt, theabsence of the typical faculty recruitment lures – prestige of the institution, its research reputation, the renown of it departments,and tenure –tended to self-select for faculty willing to take “reasonable risks”. Despite what some might consider handicaps, theProvost was able to attract an initial cohort of individuals who were outstanding teachers as well as accomplished scientists or engineers, to the College’s vision and the opportunities this venture offered. Over the next 2 years, the faculty set about designing Olin’s curriculum. There was initial consensus that a comprehensive educational program must include ‘authentic’ hands on experiences throughout the curriculum.

Invention 2000

Design efforts on OlinCollege’s inaugural curriculum and community commenced with the launching of Invention 2000. Its primary objective was to ‘develop a new culture of innovation and continuous improvement, with an enhanced entrepreneurial focus.’ If successful, the desired outcomeof their effort would be ‘to graduate self-sufficient, motivated individuals able to articulate and activate a vision, recognize problems, design a solution and bring it to fruition.” During an initial ‘Discovery’ phase of Invention 2000, the faculty curriculum design group explored current learning needs, teaching practices and curricula at a spectrum of academic institutions, businesses and governmental agencies, and considered which were most likely to advance Olin’s defined curriculum goals:

  1. to motivate and cultivate an attitude of lifelong love of learning
  2. toprovide stage-appropriate design experience throughout
  3. toprepare for and culminate in a senior ‘capstone’ project that is authentic, ambitious, and representative of professional practice
  4. to plan student activities within the curriculum that would advance a student’s ability to work as an individual, team member and team leader
  5. to advance communications skills-including the ability to communicate logically and persuasively in spoken, written, numerical and visual form
  6. to accommodate international/intercultural immersion experiences

The collective ingenuity of Olin leaders and faculty is evident in their response to unexpected construction delays which necessitated the postponement of the opening of the school by one year. In keeping with its institutional value of ‘Agility and Entrepreneurship,’ the founding faculty viewed the construction set back as an opportunity to test pilot its curriculum before officially launching it. Qualified prospective students were invited to “Candidates’ Weekends’ to be considered for acceptance as ‘Olin Partners’ who would helpdesign the final curriculum. During the ‘Candidates’ Weekends,’ applicantswere interviewed individually,as well asin groups, and engaged in team projects. (The Candidate Weekends have subsequently become an essential part of the admissions process.) Thirty students were selected as ‘Olin Partners’and contributed to the ‘Invention’ and ‘Testing’ phases of curriculum development. Fifteen additional students were accepted as ‘Virtual Partners’ and encouraged to gain additional life experiences prior to matriculating the following year.

The inaugural curriculum included traditional and under addressed elements of undergraduate engineering programs within an innovative structure. Three broad elementsserve as the pillars of Olin’s engineering education - Superb Engineering (core engineering knowledge, analytical skills), Arts (creativity, innovation, design, communications) and Entrepreneurship (management and leadership skills, philanthropy, ethics). Eachelement is introduced and longitudinally developed in integrated blocks of interdisciplinary courses and projects. To insure that the Olin education addressed the ‘whole person,’ ample time is built in into its curriculum to allow and encourage students to pursue non-technical topics, extracurricular activities and personal growth experiences, dubbed Passionate Pursuits, for credit. Finally, the Olin curriculum is based on institutionally defined learning objectives and required core curricula for specific degrees, but allows students the flexibility to design their own path while being held responsible for demonstrating mastery of required material through regular assessment.

The Olin curriculum is schematically presented in Appendix1A which illustrates the overall program’s design which ranges from introductory concepts, Foundations, to more in-depth studies, SpecializationandRealization. This process is evident in the curriculum itself as well as each of the various projects in which the students engage throughout their training. Hence, the early curriculum emphasizes, but is not limited to, the introduction, application and advancement of fundamental principles complemented by projects. This balance is reversed as students progress through the curriculum culminating in a senior capstone project. Appendix1B plots the various integrated themes or threads in interdisciplinary courses.

Olin’s required and elective curricula provide multiple opportunities for students to work on ‘real world’ problems within and outside of the college. Each semester concludeswithrequired EXPOevents featuring postersand oral presentationsshowcasing the work of the students. In addition to faculty and peer assessment, external reviewers are invited to assess and provide feedback on student performance and Olin’s educational program. The college encourages and supports students in seeking summer internships in industry and businesses where they participate in ongoing projects under supervision. During their final year, students engage in a SeniorConsulting Program for Engineering (SCOPE) in which they are sponsored by companies to take on an authentic engineering challenge throughout the year. Sponsors provide supervision and ongoing assessment of student performance. Extracurricular activities encompass a variety of student interests ranging from volunteer service projects, to liberal arts interestsand intramural sports. Olin’s proximity to and cross-registration agreements with Babson and Wellesley Colleges and Brandeis University expand the spectrum of course offerings from which Olin students can choose electives.

Olin has explicitly defined a set of personal and institutional values by which the behavior of all community members (students, faculty and staff) are expected to be guided (Appendix 2). These values are incorporated in Olin’s Honor Code and reflected in the assessment criteria described below. A faculty/student committee reviews students’ behaviors considered to be in non-compliance with the school’s honor code.

The Olin Process for Assessment and Evaluation

Engineers are reputed for their ability to monitor outcomes and their commitment to continuous quality improvement. So it is not surprising that Olin’s system for assessing and evaluating all aspects of its institution was designed in parallel with its curriculum and institutional processes and procedures. Faculty and administrators acknowledge that their initial assessment plan has undergone some adjustments as they have gained experience with the value of the data they collected relative to the effort expended. Early in its history, Olin created a VP and an Office for Innovation and Research (OIR) which orchestrates new projects, research activities and the institution’s assessment processes. The OIR staff collects assessment data and disseminates iton a regular basis to appropriate faculty and administrative bodies for additional levels of evaluation. It also provides the faculty with useful “Tips” on course planning, development of learning objectives and evaluation on its website.

Appendix3 schematically depicts Olin’s current approach to monitoring its progress and informing its decisions to promote continuous improvement. Olin’s assessment and evaluation of the components of its community combines formal assessment procedureswith regularly scheduled, informal faculty discussions of courses and curriculum. There is a broad based acceptance of assessment procedures at Olin and, perhaps more importantly, palpable support for them coupled with the expectation that they are essential for the health of the organization. The processes in place insure that problems and deficits are recognized and that appropriate measures are taken in a timely fashion to correct them.

Olin students formally receive and provide the individual assessment information in the following areas:

March 2007

Assessments Students Receive

Grades (based on tests, projects)

Competencies

Faculty, External & Peer review on presentations and projects (EXPOassessments)

“Employer evaluations” for summer internships and SCOPE projects

Assessments Students Complete

Peer Evals of projects and presentations

Courses

Teaching

Learning Environment (Nat’l Surveys)

Organizational Health Survey

March 2007

The initial system for student assessment and evaluation included formal student portfolios but a less formal approach has actually been implemented. Currently, Olin encourages, but does not require, students to discuss their expanding body of work and performance assessments with their assigned advisor (students are permitted to change their advisor if they so choose.) Individual competency assessments of students do not contribute to their formal grades, per se, but are longitudinally tracked and discussed annually by the faculty at their Curriculum Retreat. (A list of Olin’s competencies and it’s approach to assessing them longitudinally is provided in Appendix4. Appendix 5 contains synopses of evaluation formsused for theassessment of students’ EXPO presentations and summer internships.)