Session International Conference on Engineering Education August 18–21, 2002, Manchester, U.K. 1 EMPOWERMENT OF COURSE COMMITTEES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION Sanjiv Sarin 1 , Keith Schimmel 2 , Paul Stanfield 3 , Frank King 4 and Eui Park 5 1 Sanjiv Sarin, North Carolina A&T State University, McNair Hall, Greensboro, NC 27411, Phone: 336-334-7589, sarin@ncat.edu 2 Keith Schimmel, North Carolina A&T State University, McNair Hall, Greensboro, NC 27411, Phone: 336-334-7564, schimmel@ncat.edu 3 Paul Stanfield, North Carolina A&T State University, McNair Hall, Greensboro, NC 27411, Phone: 336-334-7780, stanfiel@ncat.edu 4 Frank King, North Carolina A&T State University, McNair Hall, Greensboro, NC 27411, Phone: 336-334-7564, king@ncat.edu 5 Eui Park, North Carolina A&T State University, McNair Hall, Greensboro, NC 27411, Phone: 336-334-7780, park@ncat.edu Abstract  This paper describes ongoing efforts to institutionalize course committees that are charged with overseeing the administration of undergraduate courses in a college of engineering in a mid-size university. Course committees were formed to address the need for formal collaboration among faculty to support educational processes, especially outcomes assessment and curriculum renewal. A critical component of the model is the empowerment of committees to maintain the learning objectives and to verify the instruction for each departmental course. The committees are also charged with maintaining and revising the assessment instruments and performance targets. Instruments developed to formalize and institutionalize the process are also described. Index Terms  Faculty collaboration, course committees, outcomes assessment, curriculum revision. INTRODUCTION The value of teams and teamwork has been recognized widely and implemented successfully in business and industry. Some examples of teamwork in academia include team-teaching courses, jointly submitting research proposals, co-authoring manuscripts and co-developing laboratories. These modes of collaboration are geared towards the two basic components of a faculty member’s job – teaching and research. With the increasing emphasis on outcomes assessment in engineering education, the need for faculty to work collaboratively on academic planning and evaluation issues has become very important. Although faculty recognize the need for teamwork in outcomes assessment and curricular revision processes, the frequency and quality of faculty interaction with colleagues is hampered by the culture of academics. According to Tener [1], “the greatest challenge to developing an effective outcomes assessment system is the institutional culture of the faculty.” Ewell [2] concluded that implementation of an assessment plan in which faculty provide and respond to feedback is a difficult task. Shaeiwitz [3] states the challenge as follows: “Implementation of an assessment plan in which faculty provide and respond to feedback will be a difficult task. At most institutions, it will require a significant paradigm shift in faculty behavior. It is unclear how to effect such changes; there are conflicting opinions on whether faculty is motivated by intrinsic or extrinsic factors. But, if this problem is not dealt with forthrightly at the outset, implementation of an effective assessment plan is doomed.” We believe that academic faculty are most often intrinsically motivated and have limited positive extrinsic motivation possibilities. Several studies support this belief (see for example, Sloan [4], McKeachie [5], Csikszentmihalyi [6], Deci and Ryan [7]). In other words, the use of financial or recognition rewards are not as likely to aid the development of any meaningful collaboration involving faculty as are intrinsic rewards such as the prospect of student learning improvement, intellectual stimulation, satisfying relationships with students and colleagues, and a sense of autonomy. Prompted by this, the college of engineering at North Carolina A&T State University embarked on an effort to create course committees with the goal of promoting a collaborative decision making structure without challenging the academic freedom of the individual instructor. This paper describes our experience with course committees and offers a model for implementing them in an academic department. The authors of this paper represent key faculty and administrators involved in conceiving and implementing course committees on our campus. The discussion also includes the process used to institutionalize course committees in the academic departments as well as an example of a course committee report. The discussion also includes examples of course and curriculum changes that have resulted from the activities of these committees. COURSE AND CURRICULUM D ECISION MAKING BEFORE ADOPTION OF COURSE COMMITTEES Three years ago, the undergraduate program administration was focused on maintaining status quo as far as possible. Course instructors had latitude in defining course content, delivery style and student evaluation. The set of courses required for the degree was fairly static. When changes did occur, they were often ad hoc and driven by administrative and resource considerations, or by external constituents such as employers of graduates. This approach led to various problems some of which are listed below: