development of an undergraduate distance learning engineering degree for industry--a university/industry collaboration, The

Journal of Engineering Education, Jul 1998 by Bengiamin, Nagy N, Johnson, Arnold, Zidon, Margaret, Moen, Donald, Ludlow, Douglas K

V. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT

To meet expectations of industry students and faculty, three focus group discussions, one each with students, with faculty, and with industry, were conducted in 1995. Self-assessment was the main motive for this exercise. A communication and learning specialist was the group facilitator.

Although interviews will soon be conducted, the impact that the CEDP program has on the student's professional life is yet to be determined. These students, however, have already affected the faculty, in how we teach and in how we think about assessment. The CEDP students' experiences that they share with faculty have also enhanced the curriculum.

As a result of the NSF grant, the SEM faculty formed what is called the SEM Faculty Working Group. This diverse group worked well together and progress was more efficient due to the fact that departmental chairpersons from Chemical, Electrical, and Mechanical engineering served on the committee and were able to make decisions. The Faculty Working Group identified questions and tasks, planned meeting dates, planned faculty development sessions, and contacted a variety of specialists to work with the faculty. Faculty development topics included learning styles, characteristics of adult learners and of distance learners, and matching teaching methodologies. Video training, presentation technologies, and communication with students through e-mail, phone, and fax were also included in our faculty development sessions. The faculty have also attended writing workshops conducted by campus Writing Across the Curriculum specialists who helped us clearly define writing expectations for engineers.

A critical issue in defining the CEDP program is obtaining ABET accreditation. Our goal is to ensure that the distance learning program is comparable to the on-campus programs, which are already accredited, and that the CEDP program meets ABET accreditation standards. Industry, of course, has a vested interest in this issue.

Catalono9 wrote, "At this watershed period in engineering education, considerable debate involving the content of the curriculum, the integration of design, and the development of creative and critical thinking skills in our students is taking place." Catalono advocates far less emphasis on the "deterministic scientific paradigm" and incorporating one that is more "chaos-based" . Problem-solving instructional method presents numerous challenges as faculty try to reconsider former ways of education and move toward more integrated and relevant studies. It's messy, but brings with it the "real life" aspects that our students continually urge us to do. Working with CEDP students compels us to examine what industry is doing and to plan our curriculum and instruction accordingly. This creates a positive experience for everyone, faculty, on-campus and off-campus students, not to mention industry and business.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Industry/university collaboration is a key for success in providing effective undergraduate distance learning engineering programs. Since its inception, 3M and the consortium assumed ownership of the CEDP. Operating in a university/industry partnership, the program grew and its expectations were enriched. In addition to funding the program, industry demonstrated its commitment in many other respects. Industry's commitment in allocating its resources combined with the university's commitment to quality education and outreach produced a strong CEDP at UND. This program has given us a strong lead in assessment and it invigorated our thinking towards the objectives of ABET Engineering Criteria 2000. The CEDP has a beneficial impact on the traditional oncampus engineering program in several areas including faculty development and improved instruction.