1. Evaluation and Assessment of Engineering Mobility: A North American Mobility Project A.O. Richardson, Ph.D. Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering California State University, Chico & G. Aguilera, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of International Security Studies U.S. Air War College 10/17/20121 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

2. Introduction: Project Significance Professional, cultural, language experiences abroad are desirable in a ‘globalized’ world. Engineering students lag behind their liberal arts counterparts in international exposure. Mobility project to improve that situation. Project achieved 30 percent representation from women and minorities. Above groups are under-represented in engineering in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. “Global perspective” could make engineering attractive to more students in North American. 10/17/20122 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

3. Project Overview and Attributes Project Title: North American Engineering Innovation and Training (NAEIT). A U.S.-Canada-Mexico( North American) engineering mobility project. Consortium of Six North American Universities. Course credit transfer and grade equivalency among the partner universities. Language (English and Spanish) and cultural preparation for students. Expose engineers to foreign business and cultural practices. 10/17/20123 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

4. Continuation--Project Overview and Attributes Memorandum of Understanding( MOU) signed by all Partner Universities. Fifty-five students participated in a four-year period. Students paid all tuition and fees to their home institutions. Students’ travel and living expenses paid with funds from their country sponsors, namely: HRSDC(Canada), FIPSE(U.S. Department of Education), SEP( Mexico). 10/17/20124 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

5. Consortium Partners CANADA: University of Manitoba( UMANITOBA), Lead. University of Saskatchewan( USASK), Partner. UNITED STATES: California State University, Chico( CSUCHICO), Lead. University of Texas, El Paso( UTEP), Partner MEXICO: Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas( UAZ), Lead. Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi (UASLP), Partner. 10/17/20125 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

6. Project Assessment Parameters and Tools Quality of the ‘MOU’ Effectiveness of planning and coordination. Availability and suitability of courses, research, and internship projects Course credit interchangeability. Yearly mobility numbers. Number and quality of projects performed by the students; Progress in language and cultural preparation. 10/17/20126 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

7. Cont:- Project Assessment Parameters and Tools Pre-mobility and Post-mobility written surveys administered to participating students. Project evaluation done in collaboration with an Independent Evaluator. We present the evaluation on sixteen participating U.S. students 10/17/20127 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

8. Outcomes Evaluation: Overview Administered pre- and post-mobility surveys. Evaluated progress towards mobility numerical targets. Program’s effectiveness: cultural, language, and professional objectives met? Mobility increased participation in cultural activities. Students made meaningful contacts in the host country Students significantly improved their foreign language skills. Examined U.S students’ work completed in Spanish. Clear evidence of improvement in Spanish language skills( business, technical, professional, and formal language). Mexican students achieved similar results in their proficiency in the English language. 10/17/20128 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

9. Program Outcomes, Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment Culture Students became more active socially at their host university than at their home university. Cultural activities included international food fairs, industrial nights, concerts, art exhibits. Students participated in festivals, classical, pop concerts, dinners, international student association clubs, sports, non-profit volunteering, sporting events, museums, and religious activities. 10/17/20129 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

10. Cont:--Program Outcomes, Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment Contacts Students made important contacts in their host country. ‘Contact’ = “someone you have met such that: they will remember you in the short run (less than one year) and medium run (2-3 years); you have confidence that you will be able to contact them (and they you) in the short run and medium run.” Language Reviewed students’ work completed in Spanish. Above evidence shows students’ communication, linguistic and cultural skills, had improved significantly. 10/17/201210 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

11. Unanticipated Issues Encountered, and Lessons Learned Need to improve partners’ response speed. Complexities in U.S. student visa requirements. Foreign language prerequisites for foreign study. Rigid country-specific accreditation requirements. Solution: Intensive pre-departure language training in home countries. Host institutions waived their language proficiency requirements for students who successfully completed home-country language training. 10/17/201211 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

12. Cont:- Unanticipated Issues Encountered, and Lessons Learned Need for very thorough, exhaustive, but labor- intensive search of host country’s engineering courses for compatibility with home curriculum. Prospective mobility students spent a full year for pre-departure preparation and academic advising. Additionally, examine host university’s courses, projects, internships, for ABET accreditation compatibility. Allow adequate time for pre-mobility petitioning of home institution for credit acceptance. 10/17/201212 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

13. Challenges and Recommendations for Future Work Industry participation not readily achievable, due to the recent global economic downturn. More planning ahead and industry outreach. Improve websites for course content, credits and prerequisites information. Streamline response mechanisms. Process applications more promptly with acceptance or checklists of additional items to be submitted. 10/17/201213 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

14. Conclusion The NAEIT Project exceeded its mobility targets. Year 1: institutional infrastructure for mobility. Year 2: recruit; design effective assessment plan. Years 2,3, & 4: Mobility. Completed by end of 2011. Moved 55 students, exceeded target of 48. Created strong demand and high sustainability for engineering programs that produce North American engineers with the necessary global exposure. Figure 1, shown below, is a chart representing the ‘Mobility Matrix’. 10/17/201214 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

15. 10/17/201215 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

16. Acknowledgements This paper resulted from work done for a $200,000 four-year competitive grant( 2007-2011) made to the California State University, Chico, by the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education[ FIPSE ]. It was FIPSE project Number P116N070004. The project’s Canadian and Mexican Partners in the consortium also received their own competitive grants from their respective governments--- HSRDC for Canada and SEP for Mexico. 10/17/201216 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina

17. Bibliography L. A. Gerhardt, and S. Martin, “The Global Engineering Education Exchange Program – A Worldwide Initiative”, In proceedings of the 29 th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, (Nov. 10-13, 1999), San Juan, Puerto Rico, Session No. 11b7, p.(10-13). M. Bombardieri and A. Simpson, “Beyond the lab: MIT plan pushes study abroad. School would join a liberal arts trend.” The Boston Globe, (October 14, 2006). T. R. Phillips, “Writing Competitive Proposals for International Exchange Programs”, Internal Report, Universiteit Twente. M. Morris, et al., “ International Student Exchange and the Medical Curriculum: Evaluation of a Medical Sciences Translational Physiology Course in Brazil”, American Physiological Society, Adv. Physiol. Educ 30, (2006), pp. 119-123. “Case Studies of Academic Partnerships”, A Michigan State University Report H. Salmenniemi and J. M. Ortiz, “ Student Exchange Programs: Students’ Expectations”, Board of European Students of Technology Report, IBS Chania, (March 20-24 2002), pp.1-8 “Study Abroad/Exchange Program Evaluation”, Western Washington State University Report, (2003)pp. 1-9. 10/17/201217 ASEE Global Colloquium in Engineering Education 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina