Questions in “Literature review”

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceee20

European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN: 0304-3797 (Print) 1469-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

Defining, developing and assessing global competence in engineers

Jack R. Lohmann , Howard A. Rollins & J. Joseph Hoey

To cite this article: Jack R. Lohmann , Howard A. Rollins & J. Joseph Hoey (2006) Defining, developing and assessing global competence in engineers, European Journal of Engineering Education, 31:1, 119-131, DOI: 10.1080/03043790500429906

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790500429906

Published online: 11 Feb 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 726

Citing articles: 39 View citing articles

European Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2006, 119–131

Defining, developing and assessing global competence in engineers

JACK R. LOHMANN*, HOWARD A. ROLLINS, JR, and J. JOSEPH HOEY

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0740, USA

(Received 31 March 2005; in final form 14 October 2005)

Engineering curricula are increasingly focused on developing student competencies. Many new competencies needed by engineers today are professional skills (sometimes called the ‘soft skills’). Among the new competencies for engineering graduates is global competence, the ability to work knowledgeably and live comfortably in a transnational engineering environment and global society. While there is broad agreement within the engineering community for the need to better prepare engineers for global practice, there is much less agreement as to what skills and abilities define global competence, what combination and duration of international education and experiences best instil it and what means and metrics should be used to judge whether students have attained it. This paper presents a conceptual model to define global competence, a curriculum model for instilling it and an assessment model to determine if graduates have attained it. It concludes with a description of a quasi-experimental research effort now underway designed to evaluate and validate these models.

Keywords: Assessment; Engineering education; Global competence; Globalization; International education; International experiences

1. Introduction

There has been a vigorous debate within the worldwide engineering community concerning the importance of preparing engineers for transnational practice and a global society, as can be observed in the many recent reports, conferences, accreditation reforms and efforts to enhance career mobility (American Society for Engineering Education 1994, Socíeté Européenne pour la Formation des Ingénieurs 1999, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst 2002, Accred- itation Board for Engineering and Technology 2003, Borri 2003, Soeiro 2003). While many aspects of society and commerce have become internationalized, it cannot yet be said for many university curricula that they prepare students to live and work in a global commu- nity, especially engineers. Incorporating international preparation into engineering curricula, however, has proven to be a major challenge. It is due largely to the highly sequenced and content-demanding nature of the curriculum. Nonetheless, engineering programs are finding ways to incorporate language preparation, coursework in global studies, transnational design

*Corresponding author. Tel: +1 404 894 2966; Fax: +1 404 385 6940; Email: [email protected]

European Journal of Engineering Education ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online © 2006 SEFI

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/03043790500429906

120 J.R. Lohmann et al.

projects or international study or internships into the curriculum to instil some international preparation.

However, very few of these efforts also seek to determine whether the international education or experience provided instils what is really needed.1 What kind of knowledge or experience best imparts global competence? How should it be translated into global engineering know- how and cultural savoir faire? Is there a critical combination that best develops the confidence and capability to live and work in a transnational world? Indeed, what defines global com- petence? Assuming there are answers to these questions, what are the most effective ways to instil global competence and how does one assess that graduates have obtained it? These very basic questions remain largely unanswered.

Defining, developing and assessing global competence for engineers is an emerging field of inquiry. This paper first proposes a conceptual model for global competence, then presents a curriculum model designed to instil it, and finally describes an assessment model to evaluate if graduates have obtained it. It concludes with a brief description of a quasi-experimental research effort now underway that seeks to test and validate these models. While these models were developed with engineering majors in mind, we believe they are applicable more broadly to other disciplines as well.

2. The global society and global engineer

Globalization is a fact of life, whether in the management of business enterprises, the conduct of government affairs or the exploration of the frontiers of science and technology (Ratchford 1998, Grose 1999, Wheeler 2001). Our highly interdependent global society is as much a result of the need to address major worldwide challenges, such as sustainability, health and security, as it is the result of important advances in the conduct of international commerce, e.g. the European Union, NAFTA, and the creation of nearly instantaneous worldwide commu- nications using cell phones and the Internet (McGraw 2000a, Akay 2003). These challenges and opportunities are dramatically and rapidly changing the role of engineers in society and, consequently, the nature of engineering practice (Loftus 2003).

Throughout most of the 1990s the international engineering community engaged in vigor- ous dialogues concerning the impact of globalization on society, commerce, the environment and, of course, the engineering profession. The issues discussed were extensive, often inter- related and always multi-faceted. For example, Wulf (1997) offered the seven trends that he felt had ‘the potential to change the practice of engineering significantly and hence the edu- cation required to be an engineer’. Among the trends were: the vast array of new materials and processes that broaden an engineer’s design space; the pervasive use of information tech- nology; the increasing number and complexity of constraints (e.g. cost, safety, ecology); the rise in the need to have both specific technical knowledge and breadth of knowledge; the need for teamwork and broad business knowledge; the rapid pace of change calling for life-long learning; globalization, the shift from a ‘nationally differentiated engineering enterprise to one that is far more cosmopolitan’.

While these trends suggest a rather daunting educational challenge to prepare engineers for such a multifaceted engineering environment, three new skills and abilities required of future engineers seem to emerge from much of the conversation. First, engineers need a broader multidisciplinary base of knowledge, especially in fields that were traditionally viewed as tangential to engineering education, such as global socio-economic and political systems, international commerce and world markets, environmental systems and research and tech- nological innovation (Bordogna 1997, McGraw 2000b). Indeed, one study found that only

Global competence in engineers 121

38% of the US workforce with a BSc in engineering actually worked as engineers (Panitz 1998). The remainder worked as engineering managers, entrepreneurs, patent attorneys, tech- nical writers, CEOs, financial analysts, salespersons and educators, among other positions. The role of the engineer has become quite broad. Second, engineers need more refined and diverse interpersonal skills, particularly in global collaborations (Sheppard et al. 2003, Swearengen et al. 2003, Andersen 2005, Shuman et al. 2005). ‘The business of being cre- ative is fundamental to our long-term economic health. Cultural and ethnic diversity foster this creativity. A diverse group of people has a better chance of recognizing opportunities’ (McGraw 2004). In effect, diverse groups are more innovative and effective. Finally, engineers need the ability to live and work comfortably in a transnational engineering environment. Most engineering now involves large, complex and multinational projects. Many engineers will find themselves working and/or living in foreign environments during much of their career. This places an increased emphasis on language and communication skills (Malone et al. 2003). The facility to communicate in other languages and to assimilate with ease into foreign workplaces and lifestyles are critical to both professional and life success. Amadei (2004) summarized well the new expectations of engineers: ‘Engineers have a collective responsibility to improve the lives of people around the world …the engineering profession must revisit its mindset and adopt a new mission statement – to contribute to the building of a more sustainable, stable, and equitable world’. In essence, engineers must think and act on a global scale.

It follows, therefore, that engineering curricula must instil this global mindset, which, when translated to skills and abilities, might be called ‘global competence’. But what constitutes global competence and what set of educational and practical experiences best instil it? Gaining proficiency in a second language? Incorporating coursework in international studies? Studying or working abroad? Collaborating on a multinational design project? Doing some of these, or all of these? How long, how much, in what combination or proportion?

While defining global competence is challenging, creating globally competent engineers capable of thriving in the 21st century is an even greater challenge. Most international education scholars concur that at least three elements are needed to produce globally competent students: coursework in international studies, second language proficiency and international experience (Hayword 2000, Hunter 2004). However, there is much less consensus about the kind of international coursework needed, the level of language proficiency desired and the length and nature of the international experience. Adelman (1999) suggested that a high level of ‘global preparedness’ requires a minimum of eight credits (or two courses) of advanced college level language study, two or more international studies courses and a period of study abroad. Obviously, students can and do accomplish some or all of these three elements without any organized university program. Presumably, however, we would not consider a student globally competent just because he or she had studied a language, taken a couple of international courses and had some international experience. We believe two other elements are needed (Lohmann and Rollins 2004). First, global competence is the result of a coherent program of international studies and experience. We believe the type of international knowledge and the nature and duration of the international experience, and their interconnections, are important. Second, the international knowledge and experience should be integrated and relevant to a student’s field of study, i.e. global competence should include an understanding of the relevance of international cultures to a student’s major.

Developing such global competence within the traditional engineering curriculum has been challenging. So much so that international preparation is often addressed as an add-on to the curriculum, such as minors and certificates, or is relegated to short summer experiences abroad. A more integrated and immersive approach is needed and warranted if future engineers are to graduate globally competent.

122 J.R. Lohmann et al.

3. Developing global competence

What are universities actually doing to instil global competence in students, especially engineering students? In the USA a number of universities have developed international pro- grams designed to prepare students to live and work in the global context of the 21st century, although most do not specifically mention global competence as a goal. These programs fall into four categories: co-majors or dual majors (e.g. Pennsylvania State University, Iowa State University and University of Rhode Island), minors or certificates (e.g. Iowa State University, Purdue University, University of Illinois, University of Michigan and University of Pittsburgh), international internships or projects (e.g. Worcester Polytechnic University and Pennsylvania State University) or study abroad (e.g. University of Minnesota). A number of these programs are open to students in any discipline but may be difficult for engineers to complete given the number of courses required outside the students’ majors. A summary of these efforts as they apply to engineers is as follows.2

3.1 Co-majors or dual majors

Students earn the equivalent of two bachelor degrees, one in engineering and the other in liberal arts or international studies. The University of Rhode Island offers a five year dual degree in engineering and language (German, French or Spanish). In addition to meeting the requirements for the language and engineering degrees, students spend an academic year out- side the USA, either on an internship, studying at an exchange university or undertaking a combination of study and internship. Among all universities reviewed, the Rhode Island pro- gram provides the most extensive language study, study of another culture (through advanced language courses) and the longest period of study overseas. However, this comprehensive- ness comes at the cost of requiring an additional year of study. Moreover, there appears to be little linkage between the international study and the student’s engineering major. The other co-majors (Penn State and Iowa State) involve taking 10 courses outside the major, including second language study and coursework in international studies. Penn State requires minimal international experience (9 weeks), whereas Iowa State requires none.

3.2 Minors and certificates

Two universities offer an international minor in engineering (Illinois and Michigan). Both programmes require significant second language learning, two or three international courses and a period of study or work (minimum six or eight weeks) outside the USA. Pittsburgh offers a global studies certificate designed to instil global competence through second language learning and international coursework, but with no international experience.

3.3 International experience

A number of universities place exclusive emphasis on international experience. Both Penn State and Worcester Polytechnic offer students well-developed international projects. In Penn State’s Prestige Consortium students spend a semester overseas. Students collaborate on a four-week design project with peers at European partner universities and then spend an additional four to eight weeks on internships. In the Global Perspective Program Worcester Polytechnic Institute offers its engineering students a seven week overseas project design course that immerses the students in the host country, designing solutions to local problems. Finally, the University of Minnesota has focused on integrating study abroad into engineering and other disciplines.

Global competence in engineers 123

The emphasis at Minnesota has been to match engineering courses at partner universities to required engineering courses at Minnesota.

All of these programs are commendable and represent pioneering efforts at international education for engineers. However, some of these programs omit one or more of the three components of global competency (language proficiency, international coursework and inter- national experience) and others place differing emphases on the three elements. Some programs, especially the co-majors, may delay graduation for engineering students. Many of the programs require language learning and international coursework but do not tie these elements intentionally to the student’s discipline.

Georgia Tech also offers similar programs, however, it has recently launched a new initiative, called the International Plan, which is designed to go well beyond the traditional approaches to instil global competence (Rollins et al. 2004). This program, designed for completion within four years, includes the three components deemed essential for global competence: coursework in international studies, language proficiency and an immersive international experience. A hallmark of this program, and one that sets it apart from other programs, is that it is integrated into the student’s disciplinary studies. Participants gain an appreciation for how cultural context affects the practice of the discipline. Successful participants receive a designation on their diploma and transcript signifying the depth and breadth of their global competence in the discipline (i.e. Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering: International Plan). The general requirements for the International Plan are shown in table 1. Participating units then tailor their degree programs within this framework of requirements.

Successful students must satisfy three requirements to earn the International Plan designa- tion. First, students must complete four courses in international studies, choosing one course from each of three general categories plus a culminating course. The three categories are inter- national relations, global economics and a course with an emphasis on a country or region. The three categories of courses provide both an academic foundation and a context to complement

Table 1. The general requirements for the International Plan.

A. Course requirements. The following courses constitute the curricular component of the International Plan. They provide the academic foundation that complements the international experience. i. At least one course focused on international relations historically and theoretically, including, among other

issues, topics such as: the role of state sovereignty and nationalism and non-state actors in the international system; international conflict, peace, security, intervention and nation building; international organizations, law and ethics; transnational problems of the environment, terrorism, health, and migration.

ii. At least one course that provides a historical and theoretical understanding of the global economy, including topics such as: international trade, finance, investment and production; regional economic integration (such as the EU); economic development and modernization; questions of natural resource sustainability.

iii. At least one course that provides familiarity with another country or world region that allows systematic comparisons of society and culture. This course should be directly relevant to the international context of the intended overseas experience in Part C.

iv. A culminating academic experience that integrates knowledge of the discipline and the international experience in a global context. The academic experience may be offered within specific disciplines or in a multi-disciplinary context.

B. Second language requirement. Students must demonstrate competency in a language other than English at an appropriate level. The language requirement may be satisfied in a student’s native language if it is not English. All students must demonstrate at least a level of proficiency corresponding to that expected following two years of college coursework in the language. Students whose international study/work experience (Part C below) is in a language other than English must demonstrate a level of proficiency corresponding to “ACTFL’s Intermediate High” by the time of graduation.

C. International experience requirement. Two academic terms of residential foreign experience are required, which must be characterized by living among and being immersed within the local international academic, research or work community. A total of 26 weeks (six months) of active engagement is required. The terms may consist of full-time academic study, internship or research. Academic study may occur at Georgia Tech international campuses, at Georgia Tech international partner institutions or in a faculty-directed residential program.

124 J.R. Lohmann et al.

the international experience. The culminating course, which occurs either at the end of or after the international experience, integrates and brings to closure knowledge of the discipline and the international experience in a global context. The culminating course is offered by the student’s major department or in collaboration with other departments.

Second, participants must demonstrate second language proficiency. Students are expected to reach the proficiency level equivalent to two years of college level language study. Profi- ciency is determined by an individually administered standardized test. Students who elect to study in a country whose primary language is not English will use the second language to study, work or conduct research and, therefore, are expected to meet a higher proficiency level in the second language.

Finally, third, participants must engage in a significant international experience consisting of two terms (a minimum of 26 weeks) of international experience, which must be characterized by living among and immersed within the local academic, research or work community. The terms may consist of any combination of academic study, internship or research. Academic study may occur at one of Georgia Tech’s overseas campuses, at an international partner institution or in a faculty-directed residential program.

Each academic discipline tailors the program to meet the specific needs of that discipline, such as the location and type of international experience and the nature of the culminating course. This approach not only makes the program particularly relevant to students in that discipline, it also enables the faculty in each discipline to take ownership of the International Plan and to feel comfortable recommending the plan to its majors.

The International Plan is Georgia Tech’s ‘signature program’ to attempt to instil global competence in undergraduates from any discipline. However, given that Georgia Tech is a technology institute, the plan must work for science and engineering majors. While meeting the needs of these students required some compromises, the International Plan is intended to set a high standard for the level of global competence achieved by participants. We expect participants to be knowledgeable about how the world works, to have significant language proficiency and to be comfortable living and practicing their discipline outside the USA. Thus, while we believe these three elements are essential competencies for all engineering students regardless of where they receive their education, the particular curricular requirements of the International Plan shown in table 1 are aimed at US students, and the strengths and limitations they bring with them to the university from their secondary education. Other institutions can easily modify or emphasize various curriculum elements depending on their students’ needs and pre-college preparation.

4. Assessing global competence

Georgia Tech’s International Plan offers a set of elements required to instil global competence in undergraduate students. However, to what extent are these elements (language proficiency, international study or international experience) necessary conditions for global competence and how much of each is required? Reliable answers to these and other empirical questions can best be found through appropriate methods for assessing student learning outcomes related to global competence. How do we operationalize and measure global competence? What research designs should be employed to determine the overall effectiveness of the International Plan and the relative contribution of each of its elements?

Answers to these questions have proven elusive, since the literature on international edu- cation and experiences is primarily concerned with study abroad programs. Most reported evaluations of study abroad programs dwell on logistical and actuarial aspects or with student

Global competence in engineers 125

satisfaction (see, for example, University of Minnesota 2004). Few evaluations have dealt with student learning effects or career impact (Bettez and Lineberry 2004, Peters 2004). In fact, Sideli (2001) found that less than 10% of study abroad programs are measuring career-related outcomes and only 15% are assessing aspects of intercultural proficiency. If gains in student competency through international experiences are mentioned, the reports are primarily lim- ited to the development of psycho-social outcomes, such as increased self-confidence and increased understanding of participants’ cultural values and biases (see, for example, Sutton and Rubin 2002, Dwyer and Peters 2004).

Given the concentration on study abroad programs within the literature on international experiences, a surprisingly broad array of assessment methods have been utilized, including: electronic portfolios (American Council on Education 2005); standardized instruments used in a pre-test/post-test schema, such as the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer et al. 2003); student written accounts of their experiences and structured interviews (Zhang and Li 2005); focus groups (Evans and Lelik 2005); self-reports of gains in foreign language skills (Gray 2002); student satisfaction inventories (University of Minnesota 2004). Largely absent are studies featuring rigorous methods for assessing foreign language ability or competencies specifically related to professional practice within the academic discipline.

Within engineering education the literature on the results of international experiences is even more circumscribed. For example, orientation survey data were analyzed for pre-existing dif- ferences among entering first year engineering students who eventually participated or did not participate in international experiences; participants in international experiences were found to exhibit a higher social orientation and predisposition towards civic and community involvement than non-participants (Demetry and Vaz 2002). Self-reported increases in under- standing of engineering practices and standards in the host country visited, a higher likelihood of seeking a position with multinational companies and increased likelihood of a change in career plans as a result of an international experience have also been found (Gerhardt and Martin 1999). Pilot evaluation results of gains in student learning relative to EC2000 program outcomes at the University of Louisville include increased confidence in applying engineer- ing skills to real-world problem solving and increased insight into other cultures (Bettez and Lineberry 2004).

In short, most reported evaluations of student international experiences are concerned with study abroad programs. Group comparison studies on gains in student proficiencies through international experiences are not evident. Standards for skill gains in foreign language proficiency as a result of international experiences are not reported. While self-reports of aca- demic competency gains are occasionally featured, rigorous assessments of those skills gains, especially those relevant to engineering education, are notably absent.

The assessment model for the Georgia Tech International Plan is designed to address these needs for a better understanding of global competence in a broader setting of international education and experiences. The centerpiece of the assessment model is a set of operational definitions of each facet of global competence, each expressed in measurable terms.

Basic global competence is the product of both education and experience, and it is characterized by a graduate’s ability to (1) communicate in a second language via speaking, listening, reading, and writing (second language proficiency); (2) demonstrate substantively the major social–political–economic processes and systems (com- parative global knowledge); (3) assimilate knowledgeably and with ease into foreign communities and work environments (intercultural assimilation); and (4) communicate with confidence and specificity the practice of his or her major in a global context (disciplinary practice in a global context). (Georgia Institute of Technology 2005)

Two other definitional parameters are included in the assessment model. First, the model must be capable of yielding formative information for use in programmatic improvement

126 J.R. Lohmann et al.

as the intervention commences and develops and summative information to enable a judg- ment of the efficacy and worth of the intervention. Second, the model must be sufficiently triangulated and flexible to permit comparisons of operational efficiency and the effect on participants of each of the components of the International Plan, independent of the other com- ponents, since the impact of each component of the plan may not be uniform. This approach will yield comparative, quasi-experimental evidence of student learning across all relevant competency areas, including the professional practice of engineering, such that the effect of participation in the International Plan on participants may be differentiated from those stu- dents who do not participate and thus be validated as a set of educational strategies. This should allow us not only to evaluate the effect of the intervention for institutional purposes, but also to add to the body of knowledge concerning curriculum designs to promote global competence.

In terms of research design, the population of primary interest for this comparative study consists of students enrolled on the International Plan. Comparison group 1 includes students who undertake international experiences, such as study abroad, but are not enrolled on the International Plan. Additional complexity arises in that students may undertake one, two or more elements of the International Plan (for example, study abroad) without being enrolled on the plan. This further supports the notion of having the ability to independently assess the impact of each component of the plan. Comparison group two consists of students who do not participate in any elements of study abroad or the International Plan. As far as is feasible, comparison group 2 will be matched on demographic and performance variables with students in the International Plan, as well as with those students in comparison group 1.

To facilitate meaningful overall program evaluation and assessment of student learning while ensuring our ability to differentially measure the impact of each component of the International Plan, a mixed methods design will be used, as advocated by the American Council on Education (2005). We plan to utilize an array of assessment methods, such as enrolment and completion, student demographic and performance data, pre/post-international experience questionnaires, internship supervisor evaluations, student and alumni surveys, comparative evaluation of senior design projects within the discipline, standardized tests of foreign language competence, standardized inventories of intercultural competence and reflec- tive essays on participants’ experiences and learning. The assessment schema is presented in table 2.

Limited baseline information for the International Plan comes from a recent large-scale study of baccalaureate alumni outcomes at Georgia Tech (Ludlum 2005). Nearly one-quarter (24.3%) of the 1,401 responding alumni indicated they had participated in an international experience as an undergraduate at Georgia Tech. International experience participants rated their undergraduate preparation significantly higher than non-participants in four relevant skill areas: the ability to practice their discipline in different social or cultural settings; the ability to exercise leadership skills; the ability to resolve interpersonal conflict within a group or team; the ability to converse in a foreign language within the context of their profession. Thus, we enter into the International Plan with a certain degree of measured expectation that it will have a positive impact on student learning within the learning outcomes desired (see table 3).

For all analyses conducted of the International Plan, the first year of measurement will help establish further baselines against which gains may be measured. We expect this multifaceted group comparison evaluation design to provide research-based evidence of the effect of inter- national study and experiences for engineering students and, by so doing, to add substantively to the dialogue on global competence in engineering education.

Global competence in engineers 127

Table 2. Assessment schema for the International Plan.

Participation goals, student learning outcomes, programme objectives Assessment methods Performance criteria

Participation goals • Student participation Registration and participation

counts by semester 100 students, FY06 200 students, FY07 250 students, FY08 300 students, FY09 300 students, FY10

• Graduate placement Exit survey, commencement survey, alumni and employer surveysa

To be determined pending collection of appropriate data

Second language proficiency • Communicate in a second language Pre-/post-experience compe-

tency tests administered by School of Modern Languagesb

Survey of employers of internsa

Self-report on post-experience survey

Post-international experience reflective essay

Comparative global knowledge • Demonstrate knowledge about cultures within

a global and comparative context Completion of required global

economics and international affairs coursework and portfolios of course projects

Previous information and results from the first year of plan operation will be used as a baseline. Where available, previous survey data may also be used in determining a baseline. The exception is language testing. Students choosing to use English during their international residency experience must attain the ACTFL proficiency Intermediate Mid, and those choosing to use their second language during their international experience must attain the ACTFL proficiency of Intermediate High

• Demonstrate knowledge of global issues, processes, trends, and systems

Pre-/post-international experience questionnaire

• Demonstrate knowledge of at least one other culture, nation, or region, such as beliefs, values, perspectives, practices, and products

Post-international experience reflective essay

Intercultural assimilation • Readily use second language skills and/or

knowledge of other cultures to extend their access to information, experiences and understanding

Standardized inventory of intercultural competence

• Convey an appreciation for different cultures in terms of language, art, history, etc.

Pre-/post-international experience questionnaire

• Interact comfortably with persons in a different cultural environment and be able to seek out further international or intercultural opportunities

Post-international experience reflective essay

Survey of employers of internsa

Global disciplinary practice • Use cultural frames of reference and alternate

perspectives to think critically and solve problems within the discipline in the context of at least one other culture, nation, or region.

Survey of employers of internsa

Senior design projects and presentations will be evaluated using appropriate rubrics

• Collaborate professionally with persons of different cultures, and function effectively in multi-cultural work environments.

Intercultural sensitivity • Accept cultural differences and tolerate cultural

ambiguity Pre-/post-international

experience questionnaire • Comfortably assimilate within other cultures Post-international experience

reflective essay Survey of employers of

internsa

a These instruments are already in use and supported by the Office of Assessment. bAll students electing for the second language option will be tested upon return from their international experience as part of the requirements for the International Plan designation. However, only a sample of the students will be tested before their experience for purposes of assessment.

128 J.R. Lohmann et al.

Table 3. Differences in preparation by participation in an international experience.

Mean

Alumni survey items Participated Did not participate t Effect size

The ability to practice their discipline in different social or cultural settings

3.23 3.02 3.17a 0.174

The ability to exercise leadership skills 3.48 3.28 2.94a 0.160 The ability to resolve interpersonal conflict

within a group or team 3.13 2.95 2.57b 0.140

The ability to converse in a foreign language within the context of their profession

1.81 1.64 2.53b 0.139

Rating scale: 5 = very well prepared; 1 = not prepared. a P < 0.01. bP < 0.05.

5. Conclusion

Global competence is among the new skills and abilities needed for all graduates to live and work knowledgeably and comfortably in a transnational economy and global society, especially for engineers. While there is broad agreement as to the need to better prepare engineers for global practice, there is much less agreement as to what skills and abilities define global competence, what combination and duration of international education and experiences best instil it and what means and metrics should be used to judge whether students have attained it. This paper has presented a conceptual model to define it, a curriculum model to instil it and an assessment model to determine if graduates have attained it.

The conceptual model was based on five elements: (1) proficiency in a second language, (2) international coursework and (3) an immersive international experience which should be combined in a coherent program that (4) ties the elements together and (5) integrates them within the student’s major. This conceptual model is currently being implemented in a curricular program known as the International Plan. The program is open to a number of majors at Georgia Tech, including engineering majors. As a part of that effort, a five-year quasi-experimental research effort is now underway to assess the validity of the conceptual model and the curriculum plan. Because a significant number of students are now pursuing traditional study and internship abroad opportunities at Georgia Tech (about 900 annually) and because of the comprehensive nature of the International Plan, a well-designed research effort may begin to lend important insights into how to best instil global competence in students. Preparing students for the global society of the twenty-first century is a challenging task and one that it is an important and emerging area for further scholarly inquiry.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of many Georgia Tech faculty and staff that helped to develop the International Plan, especially those who have served on the International Plan Steering Committee for the past two years.

Notes

1. An interesting exception is the effort now underway at the University of Minnesota (www.umabroad.umn.edu/).

Global competence in engineers 129

2. Information about these programs may be found at the universities’ web sites: Iowa State University, www.las.iastate.edu/students/international/progdesc03.shtml; Pennsylvania State University, www.psu.edu/bulletins/bluebook/major/inlst.htm; Purdue Univer- sity, www.ippu.purdue.edu/global_studies/index.cfm; University of Illinois, www.ece. uiuc.edu/ugrad/international.html; University of Michigan, www.engin.umich.edu/ipe/ academicprograms/index.html; University of Minnesota, www.umabroad.umn.edu/; Uni- versity of Pittsburg, www.ucis.pitt.edu/global/undergrad_cert.html; University of Rhode Island, www.uri.edu/iep/; Worcester Polytechnic Institute, www.wpi.edu/Academics /Depts/IGSD/.

References

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Recognition of the equivalency of accredited engi- neering education programmes leading to the engineering degree, Washington Accord, 2003 (Baltimore, MD: ABET Inc.). Available online at: www.washingtonaccord.org (accessed 14 October 2005).

Adelman, C., The New College Course Map and Transcript Files: Changes in Course-taking and Achievement, 1972–1993, 1999 (US Department of Education: Washington, DC).

Akay, A., The renaissance engineer: educating engineers in the post-9/11 world. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, 28(2), 145–150.

Amadei, B., Engineering for the developing world. Bridge, 2004, 34(2), pp. 24–31. American Council on Education Working Group on International Learning, International Learning Goals, 2005

(American Council on Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm? Section=Activities&CONTENTID=7919&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm (accessed 11 January 2006).

Andersen, A., Preparing engineering students to work in a global environment to co-operate, to communicate and to compete. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2005, 29(4), 549–558.

American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Engineering Education in a Changing World, 1994 (American Society for Engineering Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.asee.org/resources/ greenReport.cfm (accessed 11 January 2006).

Bettez, D.A. and Lineberry, G.T., Assessing engineering students’ study abroad experiences, in Proceedings, 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.

Bordogna, J., Making connections: the role of engineers and engineering education. Bridge, 1997, 27(1), 11–16. Borri, C., Reshaping the engineer for the 3rd millennium. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, 28(2),

137–138. Demetry, C. and Vaz, R.F., International project experiences: Assessing impact on students’ educational and personal

development, in Proceedings, 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2002, p. F4B–13. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), Increasing Mobility of U.S. Engineering Students into Germany,

2002 (German Academic Exchange Service: New York). Available online at: www.daad.org (accessed). Dwyer, M.M. and Peters, C.K., The benefits of study abroad: new study confirms significant gains. Transitions

Abroad, 2004, Vol. XXXVII, No. 5. March/April. Available online at: www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/ magazine/0403/benefits_study_abroad.shtml (accessed 14 October 2005).

Evans, J. and Lelik, M., Assessing student outcomes in study abroad programs: are students gaining intercultural skills?, in Association for Institutional Research 2005 Forum, 31 May, 2005.

Georgia Institute of Technology, Strengthening the Global Competence and Research Experiences of Undergraduate Students: A Quality Enhancement Plan, 2005. Available online at: www.assessment.gatech.edu/SACS/QEP/ (accessed).

Gerhardt, L. A. and Martin, M., The global engineering education exchange programme – a worldwide initiative, in Proceedings, 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999, pp. 1167-10–1167-13.

Gray, K.S., 2002, Assessing study abroad’s effect on an international mission – Missouri Southern State College. Change, 2002, May. Available online at: www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_3_34/ ai_85465153/print (accessed 14 October 2005).

Grose, T.K., Survival of the fittest. PRISM, 1999, 8(9), 12–16. Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J. and Wiseman, R., Measuring intercultural sensitivity: the intercultural development

inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2003, 27(4), 421–444. Hayward, F., Internationalization of Higher Education, preliminary status report, 2000 (American Council on

Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.acenet.edu/bookstore/ (accessed 14 October 2005). Hunter, W.D., Got global competency? International Educator, 2004, Vol. XIII, No. 2, Spring. Available online

at: www.nafsa.org/content/ProfessionalandEducationalResourses/Publications/IE/hunter.pdf (accessed 14 October 2005).

Loftus, M., A new era. Prism, 2003, 12(8), 26–29. Lohmann, J.R. and Rollins, H.R., Integrating international competence into baccalaureate degrees, in Proceedings,

34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2004 (University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA). Available online at: fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2004/ (accessed 14 October 2005).

130 J.R. Lohmann et al.

Ludlum, J., Baccalaureate Alumni Survey: 1998–2001 Degree Recipients, unpublished report, 2005 (Georgia Institute of Technology Office of Assessment: Atlanta, GA).

Malone, M.E., Rifkin, B., Christian, D. and Johnson, D.E., Attaining high levels of proficiency: challenges for language education in the United States, in Proceedings, Conference on Global Challenges and U.S. Higher Education, 2003 (Duke University: Durham, NC).

McGraw, D., Getting down to e-business. PRISM, 2000a, 10(2), 20–24. McGraw, D., A different direction. PRISM, 2000b, 9(5), 22–24. McGraw, D., Putting it into perspective. PRISM, 2004, 13(5), 24–29. Panitz, B., Opening new doors. PRISM, 1998, 8(3), 20–25. Peters, C., Career impact. Abroad View Magazine, 2004, 1 September. Available online at: www.AbroadViewMagazine.

com (accessed 14 October 2005). Ratchford, J.T., Science, Technology, and U.S. Foreign Relations. Bridge, 1998, 28(2), 17–23. Rollins, H.A., Lohmann, J., Long, W. and Griffin, P., Integrating international competence into baccalaureate degrees

in science and technology disciplines, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council for International Education Exchange (CIEE), Santa Fe, NM, 10–13 November, 2004.

Sheppard, K., Dominick, P. and Aronson, Z., Preparing engineering students for the new business paradigm of international teamwork and global orientation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2004, 20(3), 475–483.

Shuman, L.J., Besterfield-Sacre, M. and McGourty, J., The ABET ‘professional skills’ – can they be taught? can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 2005, 94(1), 41–55.

Sideli, K., SECUSSA/IIE electronic sampling results: Survey #2: Outcomes assessment and study abroad pro- grammes: commentary on the results of a SECUSSA/IIE electronic sampling. International Educator, 2001, 10(2), 30. Available online at: www.secussa.nafsa.org/samplingresults2.html (accessed 14 October 2005).

Socíeté Européenne pour la Formation des Ingénieurs (SEFI), The European higher education area. In Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education, 1999 (SEFI: Brussels, Belgium). Available online at: www.ntb.ch/SEFI/bolognadec.html (accessed 14 October 2005).

Soeiro, A., International accreditation activities, in Proceedings, Enhancement of the Global Perspective for Engi- neering Students by Providing an International Experience, 2003 (Engineering Conferences International: New York).

Sutton, R. and Rubin, D., Learning outcomes assessment of studying abroad: initial results from a system-wide initiative, in Council on International Educational Exchange Conference, 2002.

Swearengen, J.C., Barnes, S., Coe, S., Reinhardt, C. and Subramanian, B., Globalization and the undergraduate manufacturing engineering curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, 91(2), 255–261.

University of Minnesota, Global Campus Study Abroad Curriculum Integration, 2004 (University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN). Available online at: www.umabroad.umn.edu/ci/stats/evaluation.html (accessed 14 October 2005).

Wheeler, B.C., The state of business education: preparation for the past? Selections, 2001, 14(2). Wulf, W., Changing nature of engineering. Bridge, 1997, 27(2). Available online at: http://www.nae.edu/nae/

bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-4NHMBD?OpenDocument (accessed 11 January 2006). Zhang, C. and Li, G., Student perspectives on the impact of study abroad, poster presented at the Association for

Institutional Research 2005 Forum, San Diego, CA, 29 May, 2005.

About the authors

Jack R. Lohmann is Associate Provost and Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His principal responsibilities include the institutional development, review and accreditation of the Georgia Tech’s academic programs. He has also held appointments at the National Science Foundation, the University of Michigan, the University of Southern California and l’École Centrale Paris in France. He is editor of the Journal of Engineering Education published by the American Society for Engineering Edu- cation, a licensed Professional Engineer and a Fellow of the Institute of Industrial Engineers and the American Society for Engineering Education.

Howard A. Rollins Jr is Director of International Education and Professor of Psychology at Georgia Institute of Technology. His principal responsibilities include providing leadership to a staff devoted to facilitating study abroad opportunities for Georgia Tech students, assisting international students to obtain visas and adjust to the academic and social life of Georgia Tech and fostering initiatives to further internationalize Georgia Tech. Dr Rollins also provides leadership to the university in support of its efforts to develop international initiatives both on

Global competence in engineers 131

campus and around the world. He formerly held various faculty and administrative appoint- ments at Emory University, including Executive Director of the Institute for Comparative and International Studies.

J. Joseph Hoey is Director of the Office of Assessment at Georgia Institute of Technology. His principal responsibilities center on the assessment and evaluation of academic programs, edu- cational initiatives and funded projects, as well as on regional accreditation. He has previously held appointments at North Carolina State University and in the North Carolina Community College System. He is past president of the Southern Association for Institutional Research and serves as both a presenter and site evaluator for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.