Special Session: Agents for Change in
Engineering & Computer Science Education
Rebecca Bates
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Mankato, MN, USA
Lisa Benson
Clemson University University of Michigan
Clemson, SC, USA
Abstract— Engineering and Computer Science (E&CS)
Education is an emerging discipline and is a subset of the larger
field of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math)
education. E&CS Education has a relatively brief history, and
many individuals who are not directly involved in the discipline
are often confused about its purpose. In this special session, we
will use up to two background stories to frame the larger
questions around E&CS Education goals and help draw the
conversation from practice to philosophy while creating a safe
space for open conversation addressing issues of change in our
discipline.
Keywords—special session; organizational change; case study;
goals of engineering and computer science education
I. INTRODUCTION
We attend FIE partly because we want to make positive
change in STEM education, especially Engineering and
Computer Science (E&CS) Education and, through that, in our
world at large. E&CS Education is an emerging discipline with
a brief history and its purpose is not always clear to individuals
outside the discipline. As a consequence, the goals for the
E&CS Education disciplinary community have largely been
surface layer objectives provided by reports and outside
groups, e.g. increase the number of students studying E&CS
fields. While we need the surface layer objectives in our
portfolio, we also need to have the deeper conversations within
our community regarding what we want and why we exist.
Without the deeper discussion, we have a limited
understanding of the real impacts of the proposed objectives,
intended and otherwise. This special session will create a safe
space for this deeper discussion among a cross-section of the
FIE community. The deeper goals of our discipline not only
help us answer the larger questions of how we serve society
and empower people, but they also help us evaluate the
meaning, efficacy, and desirability of objectives provided to us.
In the context of working towards identifying goals of
E&CS Education based on historical context and discussion,
the goals of this session are:
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science
Foundation, award numbers EEC-1314725 and 1314868.
978-1-4799-8454-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
Alan Cheville Jennifer Karlin
Bucknell University SD School of Mines and Technology
Lewisburg, PA, USA Rapid City, SD, USA
Cynthia J. Finelli Susan M. Lord
University of San Diego
Ann Arbor, MI, USA San Diego, CA, USA
• To open the conversation on the future goals of
E&CS Education to a broader audience while
providing a tool for supporting change in a local
context.
• To provide structured time for contemplating
academic change dilemmas and role playing potential
paths towards solutions.
II. CASE STUDY APPROACH FOR THE SESSION
In this special session, we will use a case study approach to
frame these larger questions and help draw the conversation
from practice to philosophy while creating a safe space for
open conversation. A set of background stories is a product of
the Engineering Education Research NetWorkshop (NSF grant
numbers 1314725 and 1314868). The NetWorkshop was a
series of workshops held for engineering education
researchers in conjunction with the ASEE Annual Meeting to
focus on mid-career leadership, development, and community
building. The NetWorkshop used the "Influencer" framework
[1] to give participants tools to navigate confrontational
issues. Our approach to working with the stories is based on
elements of this framework. The background stories are
aggregated experiences that feature issues recognizable to
most individuals in our community. These experiences come
from the viewpoints of individuals in roles common to E&CS
faculty members and administrators. We will present tools to
help participants prepare for “crucial conversations” that often
arise from these background stories [2], and participants will
practice the tools while role playing at least one background
story. This and other similarly constructed case studies can be
adapted for future use by participants.
A. Background Story 1: Managing Up to Affect Change
A discipline-based education research (DBER) faculty
member is thrust into an administrative role when changes at
her university result in her being the most senior faculty in her
DBER department. To protect and advance DBER as a
discipline, she undertakes a crash course in managing up –
trying to communicate the mission of her department with the
administration, and developing a strategy for survival and
growth. It seems that there are two separate conversations
underway (internal and external to the department) about the
actual goals of DBER, and what role DBER could/should play
in shaping undergraduate and graduate education at the
institutional level. The struggle to reconcile these two
conversations results in simultaneously advocating for more
resources and asserting, with evidence, that the DBER
department has successfully fulfilled its role in leading
innovation in E&CS Education. This background story
includes navigating the change process, the roles played by
faculty, students and administrators, and the ongoing
adjustment of how the mission and strategic plan for a DBER
program are articulated to all involved.
B. Background Story 2: Change Among Peers and Students
Here, the chair of an engineering department finds himself
having to navigate course and curricular changes that had been
proposed by his predecessor. The proposed changes were
developed during a faculty meeting in which all members of
the department suggested ideas which were then ranked by
popularity. As the chair seeks to rally support in moving from
ideas to actions, he finds that underlying seemingly simply
course changes are layers of unstated assumptions and beliefs
which are deeply held but poorly articulated. As frustrations
build faculty discover that while they all are speaking the same
words—“design”, “problem solving”, “hands-on experiences”
—their conceptions of these differ greatly from those of their
colleagues.
This background story, drawn from work on curriculum
theory [3], explores how differing beliefs of faculty along with
the inability to clearly articulate wants and needs can paralyze
a change process even when on the surface there is a clear
consensus for change. During the role play, participants will
discuss past experiences and potential approaches to moving
forward. The case study created through role play will also
discuss common mistakes in managing departmental changes
including shutting down opposing views, assuming everyone
draws upon the same information, and not carefully
considering both potential gains and losses. The background
story contrasts lived academic experiences with published
change models [4], pointing out areas where these align and
examples where best practices can fall short. Participants will
experience applying a change model that identifies and
leverages influencing factors to achieve a desirable outcome.
III. OUTCOMES AND FUTURE M OVES
The expected outcome is a broader basis for the facilitators
and other interested individuals to continue discussions and
implementation of change actions in STEM education broadly
and E&CS Education in particular. Ultimately, we hope to
articulate how the discipline of Engineering and Computer
Science Education serves society and empowers individuals
and toward a better understanding of the issues facing our
community as we act as change agents to achieve these goals.
This workshop focuses on tools to support development as
change agents.
This is the second FIE special session in the overall
dialogue [5], and it builds on the participant feedback
regarding the direction of the conversation that is reflected in
the background stories and associated analysis. As the deeper
conversation moves forward, the facilitators anticipate further
discussion-based sessions/workshops summarizing the
conversation so far and engaging additional members of the
community, papers on the deeper goals of our DBER
discipline and what the goals mean for the community, and
increasing the confidence and effectiveness of our community
members as change agents.
The only way to build sufficiently deep and broad goals for
the E&CS research community is to involve a cross-section of
community members. As a special session, this emerging
discussion can move forward as a conversation that is framed
by real experiences and representative stakeholders while not
constrained by narrow participation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge contributions of all
members of the Engineering Education Research NetWorkshop
community.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Grenny, K. Patterson, D. Maxfield, R. McMillan, and A. Switzler,
Influencer: The New Science of Leading Change, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill
Education, 2013.
[2] K. Patterson, J. Grenny, R. McMillan, A. Switzler, and S. R. Covey,
Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when Stakes are High,
McGraw-Hill Education, 2011.
[3] M. S. Schiro, Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring
Concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012.
[4] A. J. Kezar, "Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in
the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations," 2001.
[5] R. Bates, R. A. Cheville, J. Karlin, L. Benson, C. Finelli, and S. M.
Lord, “Special Session: Agents for STEM Change - Articulating the
Goals of Our Community,” Procedings of the Frontiers in Education
Conference, Madrid, Spain, 2014.