Back to Table of
ContentsAN OVERVIEW OF NJIT'S CURRICULUM TRANSFORMATION
PROCESS
- A LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE -
ABSTRACT
This paper provides an overview of the change process and accompanying pain, agony, and finally, ecstasy of achieving a transformation of New Jersey Institute of Technology's undergraduate engineering curriculum.
INTRODUCTION
New Jersey Institute of Technology is implementing a comprehensive transformation of its undergraduate curriculum [1]. The main components of this transformation include a revision of the curriculum, the development and implementation of learning tools, and the establishment of strong and lasting industrial linkages.
Curriculum revisions that have been or are in the process of being institutionalized include:
Approaches to the development of learning tools that have been or are being institutionalized include:
Industrial linkages have been developed and strengthened through the following:
Implementation has been partially funded through NJIT's participation over a five year period in the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition as well as three years of funding receive from an NSF TRP program.
The dimensions of the transformation are significant. Last year's effort involved 48 faculty from 12 departments representing 3 of the university's 4 colleges, 104 companies, and total expenditures (including matching funds) in the neighborhood of $2.5 million. The effort impacted approximately 800 students and eventually, every NJIT student will be directly affected by this work. The four papers that comprise the remainder of this session will present some of our achievements.
It is the objective of this paper to provide some perspective on how this transformation occurred from an organizational and faculty point of view.
Change is tantamount to the creation of a new future. A future for which we have not prepared and the expectations of which we may not fully understand. It can suggest that what we have done in the past may not have been the right thing. When our past has provided us with many indicators of success such as excellent student evaluations, successful graduates, and possibly teaching awards, the suggestion that perhaps we should do things differently creates resistance. Since resistance is natural and inevitable, successful change requires that resistance be expected, managed, and overcome.
Communicating the demand for change is an important means of overcoming resistance, and perhaps one of the most difficult since the causes for resistance can be very personal. Traditionally, drivers for change are negative, such as anticipated or current difficulties and/or problems. In a naïve effort to present a positive driver for change, faculty members were briefed on the financial benefits that the NSF and TRP grants would provide the institution and learners as well as the accompanying prestige. However, this approach led to spontaneous and strong criticism from the faculty that the curriculum should not be driven by grants. This was overcome through a number of open meetings with involved faculty during which it was successfully argued that the curriculum belongs to the faculty, but that the faculty have a responsibility to their students to provide the best and most relevant curriculum possible. The availability of grant money was an added bonus in that it would allow the faculty to perform an essential curriculum improvement process with resources that the institution by itself would never be in a position to provide. Furthermore, the fact that the grants had timelines and deliverables associated with them provided a persuasive rationale for why change is important now.
Having established a rationale for why change should occur now, attention was focused on the nature of the curriculum changes that would be undertaken. Because the NSF and the TRP grants had been prepared by different teams of faculty, and because the resources provided by one grant were significantly more than the other, it became important to tame the green eyed monster of jealousy and rivalry between the two groups. This was accomplished by bringing both grants under the direction of the Dean of Engineering and, after consultation with and approval of appropriate program officers, pooling all resources to achieve the overriding objective of a total curriculum transformation. Everyone was now working on achieving a common vision. It was also understood that one of the rewards for achieving this vision was to make NJIT's curriculum a competitive weapon in the quest for more and better students as well as providing satisfaction to our external client - industry.
For the transformation to result in a successfully institutionalized and implemented change process, it was key [2] that faculty retain ownership of the curriculum and be empowered to develop their own, shared curriculum which, of course, had to be aligned with the objectives and deliverables required by the grants. However, this development should occur with full knowledge and awareness of what is happening nationally and internationally in the field of engineering education. Consequently, numerous reports and studies were distributed to department chairs and involved faculty so that they would not spend too much time inventing what has already been invented and is useful [3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Faculty members were also encouraged to attend and participate in ASEE meetings and others where curricular issues and innovations would be presented and discussed.
With a shared vision of the transformed undergraduate engineering education system at NJIT, the Dean acted as program manager assigning task responsibilities and schedules to faculty teams and managing the budget. The process of creating the transformation was treated as a research project rather than a teaching project. Consequently, faculty working in teams to develop new courses, course materials, or learning aids were given appropriate release time to allow them to spend required time on task to deliver their products. This typically consisted of some form of summer employment. All courses and materials developed were prototyped (after approval by appropriate faculty committees). Faculty engaged in prototyping new courses or materials were given release time to devote the additional time required to appropriately conduct the prototype courses and to participate in their assessment.
It should be noted that the reward system that was used to motivate faculty was investment-centered rather pay-off centered [9]. In other words, by providing faculty with release time to accomplish a task, a deliberate investment decision was made that represented a bet on potential curriculum innovations to be gained rather than on rewarding faculty after they have achieved. The pay-off for having developed a successful innovation came in the form of feedback from students, internal satisfaction and pride, and feedback from colleagues. For example, the following represent written comments from students in the new freshman courses in response to the shift to learner inquiry rather than passive fact absorption:
"I didn't like it when my professor didn't answer my question with what I wanted to know, but that's okay, because I learned a lot more on my own anyhow."
"I guess I should've paid more attention in high school, because now I have to know all this stuff."
"Now I know what concurrent engineering is all about and I'm ready to be an engineer."
And a recent conclusion presented during an oral presentation, "...about the class...At the start of the semester we were all presented with a task to accomplish. None of us had any experience with product development. No one had any knowledge of stereolithography or solid modeling CAD. Yet here we are. We accomplished the goal at hand. That, perhaps, is the most important lesson we learned, to succeed."
The intrinsic rewards that come from the satisfaction of having experienced success were very visible with participating faculty. The following are actual quotes from some of the participating faculty:
"I've been teaching for many years and was ready to pack it in, but this course has rejuvenated me. I feel like some life has been put back into me."
"This course must be taught by our full time faculty, full professors_.and many of them have had industrial experience. It's much better to teach the freshman from experience, than from a textbook."
"I love teaching this course! It's the greatest! The students are so innocent and anxious to learn. They really enjoy the lab experiments."
The following quote from a senior faculty member who was not involved in the original course development activity gives what may very well be the greatest cause for optimism:
"Can I teach a module next year? What kind of modules do you have? Can I teach one?"
It indicates that what we have accomplishes is not just the development of a single course, but an enhanced collective interest in participating in the transformation process.
EFFECTING ORGANIZATIONAL ACCEPTANCE FOR CHANGE
With a shared vision of what had to be accomplished, why, and when, faculty became very involved in developing the various curricular changes associated with the transformation. However, before any changes could be implemented in the curriculum, approval to do so had to be sought from a hierarchy of departmental and university committees. The major concerns that had to be dealt with involved how this material was going to be incorporated. Although the easiest solution might have been to simply add courses to the curriculum, this was not an acceptable alternative because current departmental credit hour requirements for the degree already were excessive in comparison to the national trend. Hence the dilemma became "what do we take out if new material is put in?" To engineering faculty, the obvious answer was to reduce the general university education requirements. However, to faculty from other colleges, this was entirely unacceptable because of its negative impact on providing students with a strong and broad based educational foundation for life and life long learning. From a more pragmatic point of view, there was also concern regarding the impact on student credit hours and the resulting budgetary implications. Yet, there was general support for the principle that a good and strong engineering program is good for the entire university.
Ultimately, the issue was resolved with a quid-pro-quo agreement between the Deans and the Provost that future reductions in the engineering curriculum would be achieved on a one-for-one basis. Each hour taken from the curriculum from engineering courses would be matched by one hour taken out of the general university requirements. In addition, faculty were encouraged to not view the curriculum transformation process as consisting of changing or exchanging entire courses but instead to integrate student learning by combining material traditionally taught in separate courses together. This would allow the elimination of overlapping subject matter, it would also allow for leveraging concepts traditionally taught in course with concepts taught in another (e.g. physics and calculus, engineering and English). The integration of engineering and English as discussed in a latter paper in this session [10] proved to be particularly valuable from a political point of view because it provided faculty support from the College of Science and Liberal Arts faculty in university level committee voting.
As part of this process, we have found that it is unwise to bring an entire program before any group as a completed entity. Rather, individual courses and programs should be envisioned holistically and brought before the administration and faculty as parts of the whole that are ready for approval. To view a curriculum transformation program holistically is to attempt to view the program as more than the mere sum of its elementary parts. In considering a program from a holistic perspective, the faculty is asked to consider distinct parts of the program as elements that work together to make a total effect on the learners of an institution. It is this total impression that is sought in program development.
The role of the Provost and President in creating organizational acceptance for change was also significant. NJIT had successfully participated in attracting a number of education oriented grants from the National Science Foundation including an Engineering Coalition Grant (Gateway Coalition), a TRP/MEP Grant, an Alliance for Minority Participation (AMP) grant, and a Positive Opportunity for Women in Engineering Retention (POWER) grant. In spite of the prestige and financial significance of these programs, several did not deliver as promised and the President went to meet with NSF officials to attempt to prevent the grants from being rescinded. With the exception of the AMP grant, the visit was successful. Energized by the experience, several significant organizational changes were made, including the placement of all curriculum grants under the Dean of Engineering. In addition, the President and Provost became stronger advocates for the significance of the grants and, together with the Dean, participated in meetings and information session for faculty and department chairs in support of the educational transformation. As a result, both the Engineering Coalitions Grant and the TRP Grant were able to meet or exceed all objectives and received continuation funding.
CONCLUSIONS
Initiating and institutionalizing curriculum change in a university has many parallels to effectuating and implementing change and/or innovation in organizations. Recognizing that resistance is unavoidable and a natural part of the change process permits that it be managed. The key to managing resistance lies in communicating why change is necessary, the pain or consequence of not changing, and the urgency of changing. Implementing change is enhanced by recognizing the requirement for inspiration and persistence in achieving it, empowering those impacted by it to take ownership of the process, and to insure that they are rewarded and recognized every step of the way.
The key aspects that allowed the university to adopt the changes effectuated by faculty depended on the existence of a commitment starting from department chairs and extending to the highest level in the administration. Leadership and project management by the Dean provided the pivotal level of sponsorship for change in the engineering curriculum and allowed for direct negotiation with other colleges and the Provost regarding budgetary implications of change.
Curriculum change is a disruption in expectations. Resistance is unavoidable and most will not like what must happen. It is most important that those involved will understand what will happen so they can establish new expectations that will make them comfortable with what will happen in the new environment that the curriculum transformation will create.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is partially supported by the Technology Re-investment Program of the Division of Design, Manufacturing, and Industrial Productivity of the National Science Foundation (#DMI9413088)
REFERENCES
Swart, W. "Transforming Engineering Education at NJIT," Proceedings of the 1996
ABET Annual Meeting, San Diego, California, October 31-November 1, 1996.
Kriegel, R. and Brandt,D. "Sacred Cows Make the Best Burgers", Warner Books, Inc, New York, NY, 1996
"Shaping the Future of Undergraduate Education", http://www.her.nsf.gov/due/start.htm
"Engineering Education for a changing world", American Society for Engineering Education, 1818 N Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036-2479, April, 1994
"Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology", National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230, 1996
"Engineering Education: Designing and Adaptive System", National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995
"Gaining the Competitive Edge: Critical Issues in Science and Engineering Technician Education", National Science Foundation, 1993
"U.S. Science and Engineering in a Changing World: A View from the National Science Board", National Science Foundation, 1996
Moss Kanter, R., "The Change Masters", A Touchstone Book ( Simon and Schuster), New York, NY, 1983
Milano, G., Elliot, N., Hasan, I, and Bordman, S., "Changing the Curriculum: From Freshman to Senior Year", Proceedings of the TRP/MET Grantees Conference, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22304, April, 1997