1. Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration January 24, 2006 Developing a Corporate Feedback System for Use in Curricular Reform The Use Process Stability Principles in the analysis of Engineering Curricula based on Cooperative Education Kettil Cedercreutz, Associate Provost and Director Cheryl Cates, Associate Director

2. The UC FIPSE Project Part One

3. Overview Co-op at UC

4. FWSSFWSSFWSSFWSSFWS FreshmenSophomorePre-JuniorJuniorSenior Progressive Learning Objectives Foundation Exploration Professional Contribution & Change Generation

5. 51234 5/6 1234 6 Section I FWSSFWSSFWSSFWSSFWS FreshmenSophomorePre-JuniorJuniorSenior Section II Alternating Sections

6. DAAP Engineering Arts and Sciences Business Applied Science One Stop Structure 1,500 Companies Professional Practice

7. Academic Division Professional Practice 24 Faculty

8. Feedback and Continuous Improvement FWSS 12 FWSS 34 FWSS 56 FWSSFWS FreshmenSophomorePre-JuniorJuniorSenior Employer Feedback 1 2 34 5 6 Continuous Improvement Reporting Other Feedback Curriculum & Pedagogy

9. Gathering the Data

10. Photo Courtesy of Nokia Assessment Instrument I Assessment Instrument II Assessment Instrument III Focus Groups

11. Measured Parameters (AI I): Developed in Relation to ABET a…k

12. A COMMUNICATION: - Speaks with clarity and confidence - Writes clearly and concisely - Makes effective presentations - Exhibits good listening and questioning skills B CONCEPTUAL/ANALYTICAL ABILITY: - Evaluates situations effectively - Solves problems/makes decisions - Demonstrates original and creative thinking - Identifies and suggests new ideas C LEARNING/THEORY AND PRACTICE: - Learns new material quickly - Accesses and applies specialized knowledge - Applies classroom learning to work situations Measured Parameters (AI I):

13. D PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES: - Assumes responsibility/accountable for actions - Exhibits self-confidence - Possesses honesty/integrity/personal ethics - Shows initiative/is self-motivated - Demonstrates a positive attitude toward change E TEAMWORK: - Works effectively with others - Understands and contributes to the organization’s goals - Demonstrates flexibility/adaptability - Functions well on multidisciplinary team F LEADERSHIP: - Gives direction, guidance and training - Motivates others to succeed - Manages conflict effectively Measured Parameters (AI I) :

14. G TECHNOLOGY: - - Uses technology, tools, instruments and information - Understands complex systems and their interrelationships - Understands the technology of the discipline H WORK CULTURE: - Understands and works within the culture of the group - Respects diversity - Recognizes political and social implications of actions I ORGANIZATION/PLANNING: - Manages projects and/or other resources effectively - Sets goals and prioritizes - Manages several tasks at once - Allocates time to meet deadlines J EVALUATION OF WORK HABITS: - - Professional attitude toward work assigned - Quality of work produced - Volume of work produced - Attendance - Punctuality

15. Photo Courtesy of Nokia Assessment Instrument I Assessment Instrument II

16. Assessment Instrument II Objectives: A Questions by discipline C Questions focused on curricular issues D Questions asked before and after curricular change B Questions asked only for short period

17. Photo Courtesy of Nokia Assessment Instrument I Assessment Instrument II Assessment Instrument III Focus Groups

18. Assessment Instrument III Objectives: A Focus Groups by discipline C AI II data provides focus group direction D Provides direction to departments B Questions focused on curricular issues from AI II

19. Embarking on a New Paradigm

20. Input Outcome Action Output Inpu t Outcome Action Output Process Development Cycle Operational Cycle Adaptive Cooperative Education

21. Discussion Where are you on your campus?

22. Update on Results Part Two

23. Process Stability Analysis

24. Grading Scale Unsatisfactory 1 Good 4 Satisfactory 3 Poor 2 Excellent 5 Indicate Problem Acceptable Performance

25. 3 4 Section I FWSSFWSSFWSSFWSSFWS FreshmenSophomorePre-JuniorJuniorSenior Change Δ Learning Results Lost in Noise !!! Low n Values ⇒

26. Coding of Data UFWSUFWSUFWSUFWS 2007200620052004 2003/04 Acad. Year: Class of: Quarter:

27. Three Year Stability / Major A / Engineering 2007 UFWS 200620052004 UFWSUFWSUFWS 03/04 2006 UFWS 200520042003 UFWSUFWSUFWS 02/03 2005 UFWS 200420032002 UFWSUFWSUFWS 01/02 Mean Stnd Dev 4.19 0.73 4.12 0.75 4.18 0.76 Statistical Uncertainty ≈ ± 0.10 Process Stable Means: 4.16 ± 0.04

28. 2005 UFWS 200420032002 UFWSUFWSUFWS 01/02 2007 UFWS 200620052004 UFWSUFWSUFWS 03/04 2006 UFWS 200520042003 UFWSUFWSUFWS 02/03 4.31 3.97 4.03 4.28 MAJOR A / Engineering Three Year Rolling Average Sophm. PreJr. Jr. Sr. N: 612 n: 497 Ret: 81% Uncert: ≈ 0.10 Mean 88 191 148 70 = Filed Returns

29. Absolute NeedsRelative Needs Calibration & Linearity Important Stability Important Linearity Less Important

30. Approach must not Focus on Minutia Approach must be Process Oriented Approach must have Strategic Dimensions There is no short cut to Quality Process Stability Analysis

31. Analysis Methodology

32. Process Stability Analysis Mean / Standard Deviation Matrix I d e a l !!!

33. Delta Mean Chi STDV Matrix Systematic Improvement Serendipitous Improvement Systematic Deterioration Serendipitous Deterioration Decreased STDIncreased STD Increased Mean Decreased Mean

34. Preliminary Findings

35. MAJOR A / Engineering EXIT LEVEL Mean Standard Deviation [Chi] Punc- tuality Attendance Conflict Mgmnt Motiv. Others Sets Goals Integrity Works Effectively Writing Speaking Guidance Of others Project Mgmnt

36. Major 1 / Business EXIT LEVEL Mean Standard Deviation [Chi] Punc- tuality Conflict Mgmnt Initia- tive

37. Major A / Engineering Exit Profile Major A / Engineering EXIT LEVEL Mean Standard Deviation [Chi]

38. Major A Engineering Entry Mean Standard Deviation [Chi] Punc- tuality Attendance Conflict Mgmnt Integrity Works Effectively Writing Speaking Initiative Task Mgmt Motiv. Others Project Mgmnt Guidance Of others Sets Goals

39. Major A Engineering Entry / Exit Mean Standard Deviation [Chi] Major A/ Engineering Entry Profile Major A / Engineering Exit Profile

40. Major A Engineering [Mandatory] Major 1 Business [Optional] More Homogeneous Population More Heterogeneous Population Specialized Curricular Focus General Curricular Focus Mean STD Exit Profiles

41. Major 1 / Engineering Change Decreased STDIncreased STD Increased Mean

42. Writing Speaking Conflict Mgmnt New Ideas Sets Goals Professi- onalism Learns Quickly Major 1 / Engineering Change Curriculum Initiated Learning Student Initiated Learning

43. Summary: - All Parameters Go Up - Approach can be developed into Program Fingerprint - Apples and Oranges - Every “Set of Employers” has its specific value system - Instrument is Relative - Can be used to Map Best Practices

44. Discussion Where do we go from here?

46. Cincinnati April 23 – 26, 2005

47. Dean Herman Schneider 1872 -1939 University of Cincinnati FIPSE Symposium Cincinnati April 25 – 26, 2005 Teams By Invitation Only Some Funding Available

48. Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration January 24, 2006 Developing a Corporate Feedback System for Use in Curricular Reform The Use Process Stability Principles in the analysis of Engineering Curricula based on Cooperative Education Kettil Cedercreutz, Associate Provost and Director Cheryl Cates, Associate Director