1. Division of Engineering Education & Centers (EEC)
IUSE/Professional Formation of Engineers: Revolutionizing Engineering Departments (RED)
Julie P. Martin
Program Director
Division of Engineering Education & Centers (EEC)
RED has many partners
Directorate for Education & Human Resources (EHR)
All ENG Divisions
FY19 Solicitation: NSF
Deadline January 24, 2019

2. Complex problems facing society in the 21st Century demand changes to the way engineers are educated
Prior NSF investments have significantly improved the first year of engineering students' experiences, senior capstone, yet gaps in ideal senior year
Evaluations have shown that prior investments by NSF have significantly improved the first year of engineering students' experiences, incorporating engineering material, active learning approaches, design instruction, and a broad introduction to professional skills and a sense of professional practice – giving students an idea of what it means to become an engineer.
Similarly, the senior year has seen notable change through capstone design experiences, which ask students to synthesize the technical knowledge, skills, and abilities they have gained with professional capacities, using reflective judgment to make decisions and communicate these effectively. However, this ideal of the senior year has not yet been fully realized, because many of the competencies required in capstone design, or required of professional engineers, are only partially introduced in the first year and not carried forward with significant emphasis through the sophomore and junior years.
Need to focus on the middle two years of undergraduate engineering curricula

3. Focus on Revolutionary Change
“radically, suddenly, or completely new; producing fundamental, structural change; or going outside of or beyond existing norms and principles”
The goal of the RED program is to catalyze revolutionary, not incrementally reformist, changes to the education of the next generation of engineers.

4. How Can We Support Revolutionary Change?
Engineering departments:
Department head leadership is potential lever for change
Emphasis on cultural, organizational, structural and pedagogical changes , involving students, faculty, staff, and industry in rethinking what it means to provide an engineering program.
NOT curricular reform!
Faculty engagement essential to organizational change:
Faculty development
Faculty reward systems
Cultures that support faculty engagement
Focus on organizational and cultural change within the departments, involving students, faculty, staff, and industry in rethinking what it means to provide an engineering program.
Focus on significant, systemic department change
NOT curricular reform
Create a vision for what it means to have an engineering program in their discipline
Faculty engagement essential to organizational change
Change must be sustainable, scalable, and adaptable

5. RED Teams PI – Dept. Chair/Dean Eng. Ed. Researcher Organizational
there must be a RED team that includes (at a minimum) an expert in engineering education research who can provide guidance on evidence-based practices,
and an organizational change expert who can advise on strategies for developing a culture of change and on strategies for creating meaningful collective ownership of the effort among faculty, students, and staff.
The engineering education and organizational change experts may be at different institutions from the proposing institution. Funding for these experts at other institutions may be supported as consultants, through a sub-award, or through a separately submitted collaborative proposal.
PI – Dept. Chair/Dean
Eng. Ed. Researcher
Organizational
Change Expert

6. Funded Projects
FY : ENG+EHR+CISE funded 19 Revolutionizing Engineering & Computer Science Departments
The 19 RED programs are changing department culture and contributing to literature and contributing to the literature on organizational change
For example, through RED: Colorado State ECE is revolutionizing their department by “Throwing away courses” to eliminate stove-piping, which is disjointed delivery of content. They are weaving content threads of creativity, foundations and professionalism throughout curriculum— reimagining courses into modules based on these threads. This is creating a radical new organizational model because faculty not responsible for courses anymore—instead, they are “thread champions”.
The Colorado State ECE department has become model for innovation at campus. Other departments that are interested in throwing away courses
University of San Diego was funded to start a new general engineering program. The revolution at USD is: embedding engineering problems in broader social context, and they are Redefining engineering canon.
A student majoring in mechanical engineering would encounter a canon related to thermodynamics, fluids, and heat transfer. The examples for this in a traditional, more narrow perspective would be solving a conduction problem given an infinite, wood-framed wall. Instead, USD is embedding humanitarian engagement into the cannon; the student would first encounter these concepts by solving a problem about brick ovens made for developing countries
At USD Students are getting a richer context for engineering work. Change is showing up in courses such as User Centered Design gaining understanding of why engineers need to consider social element

7. RED Impact Departments are becoming change exemplars
New organizational models in departments
Fundamental shifts in approaches to course content and the way they are offered
Meaningful collaborations between education and industry
New models for supporting underrepresented students
To put this in terms of higher-level view of the impact we're seeing:
We’re seeing departments that are becoming change exemplars– this is showing up they interact with in their institutions, engineering education community, and with each other in RED Consortium
We’re seeing New organizational models in departments–things like faculty roles being revolutionized
We’re seeing Fundamental shifts in approaches to course content and way they are offered
We’re seeing Meaningful collaborations between education and industry in various settings

8. RED Impact: Markers of Change
Change doesn’t start with the syllabus, change shows up the syllabus
Engagement of department heads and deans
Resource allocation
Language in position descriptions & hiring letters
P&T policies
[change is not an add-on]
When I participated in the last RED Consortium teleconference, the teams from first 2 cohorts were talking about what they are calling “markers” of change—these are indicators that change is happening in their department and on their campus. I wanted to share a few examples of what the teams themselves are saying about this.
They talked about the engagement of their department heads and deans– apparent not only in their participation but also in resource allocation:. Some teams talked about direct budget lines from provost for faculty fellows, graduate teaching fellows
They also talked about Language as a marker of change: for example, the language used in in faculty and graduate student position descriptions & hiring letters
And the language and policies for promotion and tenure
- all the teams talked about these markers of change as proof that their revolutionary ideas were not “tack ons” to what’s going on in their department; they are actually changes in culture of the department
One RED team member said something that I thought was really key to the way the teams are thinking about their revolutions, and demonstrates the difference between reform that I mentioned at the very beginning and REVOLUTION:
They said “Change shows up the syllabus, change doesn’t start with the syllabus”
I thought that was a good way for us to understand the kinds of fundamental changes that RED is having and how it’s different from preiovus engineering education intiatives
 revolutionary ideas are not “tack-ons”

9. RED Participatory Action Research
Rose-Hulman & University of Washington
Studying the change agents themselves to understand how to create diffusion of new ideas
Foster and support “cohort”/collective impact ethos
EAGER award made to a team from Rose-Hulman and U. Washington
Rose-Hulman, Making Academic Change Happen (MACH)
Convening regular teleconferences to discuss challenges and successes
U. Washington, Center for Workforce Development
Conducting research on the change process across the projects
Will provide case studies on how to manage change effectively
Providing resources on change to assist the teams
Providing case studies on how to manage change effectively
The awards from each FY have formed 3 cohorts that meet at annual PI meetings , monthly meeting which are called RED consortium meetings where they discus strategies, address local changes; org. knowledge transfer)
3 cohorts
Annual PI meetings and monthly multi-team meetings
Peer mentoring among and between cohorts
ASEE and FIE– standing room only special session

11. FY 19 Solicitation: Major Changes
An Adaptation & Implementation (A&I) track was added to foster the propagation of proven change strategies to new contexts.
Computer Science is no longer included.
Need for adaptation and implementation of existing RED revolutions as well as other revolutionary ideas to other contexts

12. Adaptation & Implementation
IUSE/PFE: RED
Two Program Tracks
Innovation
Radically, suddenly, or completely new approaches and actions
Producing fundamental, structural change
Go outside of or beyond existing norms and principles
Adaptation & Implementation
Evidence-based and evidence-generating change strategy approaches and actions adapted to the local context
In order to continue to catalyze revolutionary approaches, while expanding the reach of those that have proved efficacious in particular contexts, the RED program will support two tracks in FY19: RED Innovation and RED Adaptation and Implementation (RED-A&I). RED Innovation projects will develop new, revolutionary approaches and change strategies that enable the transformation of undergraduate engineering education.
RED Adaptation and Implementation projects will adapt and implement evidence-based organizational change strategies and actions to the local context, which helps propagate this transformation of undergraduate engineering education. Projects in both tracks will include consideration of the cultural, organizational, structural, and pedagogical changes needed to transform the department to one in which students are engaged, develop their technical and professional skills, and establish identities as professional engineers. The focus of projects in both tracks should be on the department's disciplinary courses and program.
Between $1M to $2M
Up to 5 yrs
Maximum $1M
Up to 5 yrs
Both tracks include consideration of cultural, organizational, structural, pedagogical changes needed to transform the department to one in which students are engaged, develop their technical and professional skills, and establish identities as professional engineers.
Proposals outside the budgetary limits will be returned without review

13. Outcomes for Both Tracks
Fund programs that can serve as exemplars of change
Revolutionary change to middle two years of undergraduate curriculum
Connect engineering education research and practice
Contribute to the literature on change
Create of a cohort of project teams with activities and collaboration within and across cohorts

14. Vision for Department
Describe the department and the student professional formation experience “after the revolution.”
How is success defined?
Provide a concise answer to the question: “What will be different?”

16. Successful RED Proposals
Vision: How revolutionary is the vision in light of a well-grounded understanding of the history, context, and culture of the department?
PI Team: Is the RED team complete, with all required expertise? Is each member fully qualified to perform the proposed work?
Institutional Commitment: Do the letter(s) of commitment provide evidence of support for the project sufficient to achieve the goals and objectives?
Connection to Professional Practice: Is there a sufficient connection in the proposed project to professional practice?
Faculty Development Plan: Is faculty development well planned and properly incentivized to build department cultures that support the holistic professional formation of engineers?

17. Successful RED Proposals
Potential for Success and Scalability: How achievable and significant are the proposed changes in the middle two years of the technical core? How responsive are the changes to the call to focus on professional skills? Reviewers will take into account justification of the research plan using the literature, comprehensiveness of the plan, institutional leadership commitments, sustainability of change (including leadership changes and financial sustainability)
RED Innovation: Is the theory of change valid and well-justified? How well- justified are the propagation roadmap/transferability of change strategies?
RED A&I: How reasonable and appropriate is the reach of the dissemination plan?
Connection to Research on Engineering Education: How well-informed are the vision and execution plan by the literature and prior attempts, if applicable, to implement change? Is the expectation of success well- justified?
Adaptation & Scaling: How likely is the new knowledge generated about how to change department culture to be received and utilized by others? How well-conceived are the plans for accomplishing these goals?

19. FAQs How many proposals can be submitted by an institution?
A maximum of proposals per institution are allowed.
Does 2 proposals from each institution mean one for each track?
It’s up to your institution how you want to do this as long as no more than 2 proposals are submitted per institution.
My institution has a RED project, can I submit a proposal?
An institution that already has a RED award can submit a RED A&I proposal to the new solicitation. Institutions with existing RED awards may not submit a proposal to the RED Innovation track.
Can computer science departments submit proposals?
Computer Science departments are no longer eligible to submit proposals to the RED program.
Can proposals be submitted from engineering technology departments?
Yes! We encourage engineering technology departments with four year programs to submit to the RED program

20. Reading List
Webinar Developing a Competitive RED Proposal presented by current RED awardees,
Journal of Engineering Education Special Issue: The Complexities of Transforming Engineering Higher Education, April 2014, 103(2):
Johri, A. and Olds, B. (2014). Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
National Academy of Engineering. (2013). Educating Engineers: Preparing 21st Century Leader in the Context of New Modes of Learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
ASEE. Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering: Phase I: Synthesizing and Integrating Industry Perspectives, May 9-10, Workshop
Report.

21. Type your question into the chat box
Q&A
Type your question into the chat box

22. Reading List
Jamieson, L., and Lohman, J. (2012). Innovation with Impact: Creating a Culture for Scholarly and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Watson, K. (2009). Change in Engineering Education: Where does Research Fit? Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1): 3-4.
Spalter-Roth, R., Fortenberry, N., and Lovitts, B. (2007). The Acceptance and Diffusion of Innovation: A Cross-Curricular Perspective on Instructional and Curricular Change in Engineering. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association and National Academy of Engineering Center for the Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education.
National Academy of Engineering (2005). Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

23. Project Plan and Evaluation Framework
RED Innovation
RED A&I
Rationale & Context: Why change is needed in current department? How does context of original implementation compare to new context? How is original implementation being adapted to the new context?
Goals & Objectives:
What outcomes and targets at the end of this project will move the department toward the vision? What will change about the department? What will change about the faculty? What will change about the professional formation of students?
Specific Actions: What is the evidence basis from the literature that supports use in the department’s context?
Specific Actions: How are activities being adapted for success in the new context?
What is the theory of change; how and why should these activities effect lasting change?
Barriers:
What are anticipated barriers to achieving objectives? What contingency plans are in place?

24. Project Plan and Evaluation Framework
RED Innovation
RED A&I
Research Plan: What are your research questions? What educational or sociological theories inform them? What methods answer the research questions posed? These can be qualitative or quantitative as appropriate to the question and theoretical orientation.
Evaluation Plan: Matches the scope of proposed work. Based on the theory of change and desirable outcomes of the proposed revolution.
Evaluation Plan: Focuses on implementation of the proven strategies in the local context.
What are the appropriate indicators of success related to accomplishing the goals and objectives and a timeframe to seek measurable change?
Roadmap to Scaling & Adaptation: How will the project make an impact both locally and regionally/nationally by supporting revolutionary change in other departments?
Dissemination Plan: How will knowledge from the adaptation be diffused to other departments and institutions?