Each partner institution will focus on the management of change at the department level and will formally document the processes associated with institutionalization on their campus. Furthermore, two new partners will demonstrate the migration from traditional engineering curricula to Foundation Coalition–based curricula more quickly and at less cost than the original partner institutions.

Individual departments are key to our goal of widespread institutionalization. The process by which we will reach that goal is to focus, Coalition-wide, on the engineering departments. In Years 1–5, the degree of institutionalization has varied across departments and across campuses. On one campus, for example, mechanical engineering may be pushing for change, whereas at another the electrical engineering faculty may be the most supportive and the mechanical engineering the most resistant. Our goal, of course, is for every student in every program to be affected by Foundation Coalition (FC) reforms.

As part of the Year-4 Report to the National Science Foundation (NSF), we provided curriculum listings (see Sample Listing in Figure 1) that demonstrated how the FC curriculum changes were affecting departments on our campuses. The Year-4 Review Team felt that a schematic representation would be more meaningful as we look toward the future, and we worked together during the review to identify a general format for the presentation of this vision. Figure 2 represents a sample of such a representation. It provides an overview of the material required by a given major on a given campus, identifying the components that have been directly impacted by the FC. We have identified departments on each campus that will take the lead in demonstrating, on their campus and across the Coalition, how their curriculum will be modified as a result of the FC. Curriculum maps for these programs are found in Appendix F and include aerospace, agricultural, biomedical, civil, chemical, computer, electrical, industrial, mechanical nuclear, ocean, petroleum, and radiological health engineering programs.

Figure 1: Sample Curriculum Listing as Submitted in the Year-4 Report to NSF

Department xxx, University yyy

Courses that have been replaced or extensively modified in terms of both content and pedagogy, as of spring 1997, are indicated by dark shading. Courses that will be replaced or extensively modified in terms of both content and pedagogy, as of spring 1998, are indicated as by lighter shading.

Pre-calculus–ready Freshman Year

*Students may opt to take in 96/97 and 97/98, targeted to be required in 98/99.

Students in this option take a 3^d semester to finish the courses shown in the SPRING semester for calculus-ready freshmen.

Calculus-ready Freshman Year

* Students may opt to take in 96/97 and 97/98, targeted to be required in 98/99.

Sophomore Year

* Students may opt to take in 96/97 and required in 97/98.

Junior Year

Senior Year

Beginning in Year 6, the FC will sponsor discipline-specific workshops that bring the department faculty together across the Coalition. The success on one campus in electrical engineering, for example, may address areas of concern at another that have prevented a total curriculum revision based on FC reforms.

Institutionalization, however, implies that not only have the curricular changes developed by the Foundation Coalition been adopted by the institution but also that the processes associated with responsive curriculum modification are understood and accepted at that institution. As each partner campus transitions from their existing courses to a responsive FC curriculum that promotes the development of inclusive learning communities, the individual steps within this process must be recorded. The ability to document the issues involved in curriculum change, including the stages that a campus goes through during a change of its curriculum and the obstacles confronted by that campus during the change, is of tremendous value to other schools contemplating change at their own institution.

Recognizing the importance of this documentation process, which allows us to truly understand the issues associated with institutionalization, we began working with Dr. Michael Abelson of Texas A&M University (TAMU) in Years 4 and 5. Dr. Abelson worked directly with two of our campuses (Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and TAMU), documenting the processes that took place on each campus during Years 1 through 5 with respect to the FC program. During Years 6 through 10, the Foundation Coalition will formally document the processes associated with institutionalization on all partner campuses. These individual processes will then be examined at a national level, identifying common themes and circumstances. A combination of these individual campus results will allow the FC to identify the basic principles associated with the institutionalization process that are common to curriculum-change initiatives on any campus. Coordinating this and other institutionalization activities Coalition-wide will be the FC Institutionalization Director. Duties of that individual are detailed in Section 5.

Finally, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and the University of Wisconsin play a unique role in Years 6–10 with respect to institutionalization. These campuses will demonstrate the migration from traditional engineering curricula to FC-based curricula more quickly and at less cost than the original partner institutions. Comparisons of the change process that took place on these campuses, with those at the original partner campuses will prove insightful and valuable to the FC and to the entire engineering education community.