Adapted from Smith, K.A. & Waller A.A. 1997. After word: New paradigms for college teaching. In Campbell, W.E. & Smith, 1 K.A. (Eds.). New paradigms for college teaching. Edina, MN: Interaction. New Paradigms for Engineering Education 1 Karl A. Smith and Alisha A. Waller Abstract - A paradigm shift is taking place in engineering education, driven by ABET, changing expectations of employers, the rapidly changing state-of-the-art of pedagogy, and many other forces. Minor modifications in current teaching practices will not solve the current problems. Teaching success in today's world requires a new approach to instruction. This article starts by summarizing the paradigm we're leaving behind at various rates in colleges and universities across the country. We then present our take on the paradigm we're entering into, explore implications of the changing paradigm for students and faculty, and close by offering some suggestions for fostering change. The aim of this article is to stimulate thinking about the changing nature of engineering education and to encourage the reader to engage in reflection and conversation. The old paradigm of college teaching is based on John Locke's assumption that the untrained student mind is like a blank sheet of paper waiting for the instructor to write on it. Student minds are viewed as empty vessels into which teachers pour their wisdom. Because of these and other assumptions, teachers think of teaching in terms of these principal activities and perspectives: Transferring knowledge from teacher to students. The teacher's job is to give it; the student's job is to get it. Teachers transmit information to students in a one-way interaction. Filling passive, empty vessels with knowledge . Students are passive recipients of knowledge. Teachers own the knowledge but students are not invited to share that ownership. Expecting students to memorize relevant information. Tests typically require recall or recognition, e.g., recall memorized formulae and plug in values. Homework assignments are typically pattern matching--see examples in class, do similar problems on homework with the data changed. Although faculty routinely claim that they are interested in promoting critical thinking, course syllabi show that they require memorization, recognition and recall. Classifying students by deciding who gets which grade and sorting students into categories by deciding who does and does not meet the requirements to be graduated, go on to graduate school, and get a good job. There is constant inspection to "weed out" any defective students. Teachers classify and sort students into categories under the assumption that ability is fixed, is observable in the current system, and is unaffected by effort and education. One kind of ability is valued. Certifying through a checklist. Students strive to obtain certification by checking off requirements, then promptly forget much of what occurred in each class that was checked off. Conducting education within a context of impersonal relationships among students and between teachers and students. Based on the assembly line model of industrial organizations, students and teachers are perceived to be interchangeable and replaceable parts in the "educational machine." Maintaining a competitive classroom structure in which students work to outperform their classmates and faculty work to outperform their colleagues. Each student is striving to capture one of a fixed number of available As and each faculty is fighting for a fixed number of tenured positions or promotions. Assuming cultural uniformity in the classroom. Students are expected to conform. The same background is assumed for all students through tightly controlled sequence of prerequisites. The goal for each student is the same--"one size fits all." "Fairness" means treating each student exactly the same, despite their individual differences or needs. The context of knowledge development is ignored or discounted, e.g., math developed by Persians or Mayans. Holding tightly onto power. All topics, assignments, and activities are decided by faculty. An individual student is seen as an independent, self-sufficient unit. Faculty judge student performance, answer questions, explain the correct way of doing or interpreting, etc. Students sit quietly in their seats--eyes front, feet on floor, and mouth shut. Conducting assessment “objectively,” often by multiple choice tests. Minimal assessment formats and infrequent testing (mid-term and final) are common. Student rating of instruction at the end of the course is the only form of faculty/course assessment. Assuming a logico-scientific mode of knowing. Rational, logical arguments are the only ones accepted. Data must be objective and quantitative. Individual's experiences are averaged together to find the “normal” experience. Logical proof of propositions is required. Empirical evidence must be