Steering Committee Meeting Friday January 27, 2006

Agenda, Supporting Materials, and Notes

Attendees: Scott Huff, Susan Boyanovsky, Ron McGuire, Larry Flick (ph), Di Saunders, Dick Knight, Dale Merrell, Bill Becker, Michal Young (ph), Ginger Redlinger (ph), John Baggott, Don Domes, Bruce Schafer, Jo Oshiro

Notes please click here

Agenda, Friday, January 27, 2006

3:30 – 3:35	Introductions, opening remarks
3:35 – 4:00	Review of purpose and results of OPAS Summit Purpose Themes Eight focus areas Alignment and Coordination: System-wide Alignment and Coordination: Curricula and Co-Curricula Career ( Degree) Pathways Diversity Instructional Professional Development Marketing Engineering and Applied Science Careers Standards: Courses and Curricula Student Success: Access, motivation, and retention Recommendations Major categories of recommendations Table summarizing recommendations Distribution of report Summary of closely-related RFP OSU Grant Proposal to NSF
4:00 – 4:45	Overview of next steps Model of possible uses of strategy and plans Establishment of subcommittees Development of strategy summary Communication of strategy and recommendations Development of detailed plans in focus areas Implementation of plans
4:45 - 5:00	Scheduling of next meeting and adjournment

Notes:

• Bruce Schafer reviewed the purpose, goals, and recommendations of OPAS Strategic Planning Summit 2005. See the Agenda above for relevant links.
• Review of the Summary of the Grant Proposals received in response to the ETIC RFP in support of OPAS recommendations -
  • Ginger Redlinger can provide insight into proposal review criteria & other possibly complementary RFP programs in the state.
  • OPASS is very concerned about the weighting process
• Ron McGuire hopes the committees will provide real solid guidance to school districts on criteria and process to apply to what an engineering program looks like. Committee concludes that it has two modes of influencing school districts:
  • Incent school districts by legislating requirements
  • Make recommendations
• Dick Knight - the committee must be careful how we state the problem, and points out that his research confirms that the core requirements for 4 year post-secondary engineering programs are fairly consistent, well-defined, and have not changed much over time. Problems remain with students not matriculating for engineering because they don't know what it is, the reputation of college engineering programs as sink-or-swim in deep water (2/3 attrition in first two years), affordability, lack of career advising with high school counselors. We now need to concentrate on:
  • communication (marketing)
  • preparation
  • retention
  • cost
• The committee agrees that engineering technician programs are a different and more complex problem.
• Michal Young - Within "retention" we must expect, account for and even encourage students to change majors as they learn their skills and interests.
• Bruce Schafer - marketing and preparation must contend with lack of schedule flexibility.
• Scott Huff - HS currently don't help students understand what engineering is
• Larry Flick - we need to consider technician paths, and communications starting at middle school. Teachers are key because counselors are not able to expose kids.
• Ron McGuire - students don't know enough about engineering to know that they can take their science and math on to engineering at the college level.
• Next steps:
  • Bruce Schafer introduced a thought piece on Modes of Change & Implementation. The committee noted that the philanthropy/foundation piece of funding had not been incorporated into this model.
  • Susan Boyanovsky - be aware of overlap issues & how to avoid/resolve them
  • Dick Knight - focus on 2 key pieces
    • Ongoing fundamental work of system refinement , etc. which needs ongoing effort but which we will not finish
    • Finding the few pivot points to which the committee can effectively apply resources in the areas of:
      • Marketing & Outreach of Engineering as a profession
      • Professional Development - address substantial gap in skills and knowledge in high schools
      • Curriculum & Standards, connecting between higher ed & K12
• Next meeting is Thursday, Feb 23 at 3:30. Jo will provide phone bridge info.

For questions, corrections or additions to these notes, please email Jo Oshiro or call (503) 725.2910.

Summary of Recommendations:

Establish strategic and tactical councils, committees, and task forces to further develop Summit recommendations and coordinate their implementation

1. Initiate and enhance marketing and outreach efforts to assure that all students and their parents understand the opportunities available to them and the steps required to reach them
2. Enhance curriculum and standards to include engineering & technology to achieve several overlapping goals: enhance problem solving skills of all students; motivate students in traditional disciplines including math and science; provide technical literacy to all students; and impart insights on wide variety of career opportunities and possible pathways to these careers.
3. Grow and enhance professional development programs that allow K12 and college faculty to more effectively deliver STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathmatics) curricula and assure consistency between the outcomes of courses and the prerequisites of subsequent courses.
4. Enhance funding to achieve these goals from federal, state, and private sources through collaboration among stake holders.

Table of Recommendations

Focus Area	Follow-up Organization	Marketing / Outreach	Curriculum  / Standards	Professional Development	Funding
Alignment & Coordination: System-wide	Create Strategic & Tactical Councils	Review recommendations, advocate & coordinate	Review recommendations, advocate & coordinate	Review recommendations, advocate & coordinate	Review recommendations, advocate & coordinate
Alignment & Coordination: Curricula and Co-curricula	Summit of teachers & administrators	Make co-curricular programs available to all students	Share among organizations		Jointly explore
Career Pathways	Create Statewide Engineering Pathways Task Force	Inform all stakeholders	Create customizable pathway framework
Diversity	Champions that promote strategy	Work through parents educating them on opportunities & pathways.		Use internships and  industry mentors
Instructional Professional Development	Coordinate development and implementation of recommendations		Pool resources including project kits, elucidate of engineering in teaching science & math. Improve relevance of college teaching	Deliver presentations to teachers via teacher associations. Use industry / university / community college partnership
Marketing Engineering & Applied Science Careers	OPAS Committee or other follow-up organization	Multi-tiered awareness program, grow existing programs, enhance partnerships. Grow outreach programs, e.g. ORTOP, ISEF. Establish industry speakers & mentor.		Short-term teacher training, e.g. SuperQuest. Develop Teacher internships	Seek industry funding
Standards, Courses and Curricula	Advisory Committee of academic and industry.		Standardize pre-requisites & outcomes of lower division courses and develop assessments.	Focus on course outcomes.
Students Success: Access, Motivation and Retention	Statewide Council for resource coordination and planning		Enhanced science/math standards to assure both inquiry and problem solving models are included.

Steering Committee Members: email to entire task force - click here

John Baggot	OSU Extension
William Becker	PSU Center for Science Education
Susan Boyanovsky	Oregon Dept. of Community Colleges & Workforce Development
Tim Brower	Oregon Instutute of Technology
Robert Damiano	Synopsys
Steve Day	Beaverton School District
Don Domes	Hillsboro High School
Larry Flick	OSU Dept. of Math & Science Education
Scott Huff	Portland Community College
Don Kirkwood	North Salem High School
Dick Knight	Saturday Academy Board
Dave Krumbein	Blue Mountain Community College
Diana LaBoy-Rush	Society of Women Engineers
Ben Manny	Intel Corporation
Ron McGuire	Roseburg High School
Dale Merrell	CAPITAL Center Technical Institute
Jo Oshiro	OPAS staff support
Ginger Redlinger	Oregon Dept. of Education
Skip Rochefort	OSU Engineering
Diane Saunders	Oregon University System
Bruce Schafer	Oregon University System
John Tortorici	Software Association of Oregon
Jim Troisi	IBM
Hyacinth Williams	Columbia Gorge Community College
Michal Young	UO Computer Science Department

Subcommittees: (weblinks to subcommittee pages in development)

ACSW (Alignment and Coordination: System-wide)

ACCC (Alignment and Coordination: Curricula and Co-Curricula)

CPTH (Career Degree Pathways)

DIVR (Diversity)

IPD (Instructional Professional Development)

MKTC (Marketing Engineering and Applied Science Careers)

SCC (Standards: Courses and Curricula)

SAMR (Student Success: access, motivation, and retention)

For questions or information regarding these committees, please email Jo Oshiro or call (503) 725.2910.

ACSW: Alignment and Coordination: System-wide

Mission : Developing policies and practices throughout the educational system that increase the consistency between standards and assessment at one level with the prerequisites for the next level. Assuring that credit can be transferred regardless of whether the student plans on an associate degree or a four-year degree.

Recommendations : The primary strategy from this group was to create a statewide council that has both strategic and tactical levels. This council would be tasked to develop policy recommendations, and coordinate existing and new engineering and applied science programs. A supporting strategy was to immediately restart and expand a dormant “Engineered Community” group to take on skill set development, career pathways, and other recommendations of the Summit. This latter group may become the tactical level of the statewide council once the council is up and running.

ACCC : Alignment and Coordination: Curricula and Co-Curricula

Mission : Using best practices from the co-curricular world in classroom instruction and vice versa. Identifying ways that the two learning environments can complement each other and address the gaps in each system.

Recommendations: The key strategy of this group was to improvecoordination and funding of co-curricular activities in order to assure that all students in Oregon have the opportunity to participate in co-curricular activities.

CPTH: Career ( Degree) Pathways:

Mission : At the summit, committee members changed the name from “Degree Pathways” to “Career Pathways”. Describing the relationship of educational programs and integrated work experiences to careers. Effectively communicating this information to students to allow them to make informed and productive decisions. Pathways may provide multiple entry and exit points for students who cannot complete all their educational goals at one time and thus join the workforce after completing one or more levels with the possibility of returning to an educational program later.

Recommendations: The three priority strategies that emerged from this group were to create a customizable pathway framework (building on existing efforts), create strategic multi-faceted marketing of the common framework, and assess and evaluate the framework model.

DIVR: Diversity:

Mission : Increasing the ethnic and gender diversity in technical fields. Developing new strategies to attract diverse students. Enhancing and growing existing programs and methods to increase the diversity of students preparing for and succeeding in applied science and engineering education.

Recommendations: In order to raise the participation and performance of under-represented groups at all levels, this group’s priority strategy was work through parents, providing them the information and insights required to overcome cultural barriers to engineering and related careers.

IPD: Instructional Professional Development:

Mission : Increasing the capacity of teachers and faculty to deliver learning experiences that inspire and prepare students. Identifying and providing professional development programs and strategies that enhance their knowledge, skills, and mastery.

Recommendations: The three priority strategies in this focus area were to develop pooled resources for teaching engineering and applied science projects, elucidate the role of engineering in supporting core curriculum, and improve the relevance and quality of teaching at the post-secondary level.

MKTC: Marketing Engineering and Applied Science Careers:

Mission : Increasing the number Oregonians interested in pursuing engineering and applied science as a career and gaining the education they need to successfully do so.

Recommendations: The overarching goal is to assure that every student entering high school has been exposed to engineering and has the resources available to make an informed choice about STEM* educational opportunities. The group identified three priority strategies: Create a multi-tiered program to build awareness of opportunities and career options, leverage and/or replicate existing models and best practices, and enhance state/industry/education/association partnerships.

SCC: Standards: Courses and Curricula:

Mission : Improving standards and aligning courses to standards. Identifying gaps in curricula and course content to fill them. Continuous improvement to curriculum to assure the highest quality courses.

Recommendations: The two priority strategies were to develop standard outcomes and pre-requisite knowledge and skills for core 100-200 level engineering science; and develop assessments based on standard outcomes and rubrics.

SAMR: Student Success: Access, motivation, and retention:

Mission : Identifying perceived barriers to access and developing strategies to increase student confidence in their ability to succeed. Identifying motivational and retention strategies that will inspire students to pursue engineering & applied science education and support these students in completing this education.

Recommendations: The two priority strategies were toform a stakeholder team to rethink standards and develop a problem solving, inquiry-based model; and create a statewide council for resource coordination and planning.

* STEM: Science Technology Engineering & Mathematics

Letter of Intent to Submit to NSF STEP Solicitation – Oregon State University

Skip Rochefort, Associate Professor and Director, OSU and COE Precollege Programs

Ellen Momsen, Director, Women and Minorities in Engineering Program

Janine Trempy, Professor and Associate Dean of the College of Science

College is a Plan: Transitions to STEM Success

This project proposes to modify and expand existing recruitment and retention prototypes at Oregon State University to focus on STEM recruitment and retention. Specifically, we propose to:

1. Modify and expand the transitional learning community and supplemental learning concepts that have been piloted at OSU to students in the College of Engineering and the College of Science.
2. Develop an integrated service model that engages STEM students in leadership and mentoring activities related to STEM careers..
3. Develop the process to provide early undergraduate research and scholarship experiences to STEM students engaged in transitional learning community and supplemental learning environments to increase retention.
4. Implement these programs at the eleven OSU community college dual-enrollment partners.

PARTNERS

- At Oregon State University

College of Engineering

College of Science

Academic Success Center

Center for Teaching and Learning

Center for Community and Diversity

Department of Science and Math Education

Student Orientation and Retention (SOAR)

-Oregon Community Colleges (OSU dual-enrollment partners)

Blue Mountain Community College

Chemeketa Community College

Central Oregon Community College

Columbia Gorge Community College

Linn-Benton Community College

Mount Hood Community College

Oregon Coast Community College

Portland Community College

Southwestern Community College

Tillamook Bay Community College

Umpqua Community College

Transitional Learning Communities

A Transitional Learning Community (TLC) is a small group (15-20) of first-year students taking core courses together during their fall term at OSU. These are regular university courses that satisfy graduation requirements. The traditional TLC group is linked together through a course that meets weekly, providing a support structure combined with enrichment activities led by upper-division student peer leaders.