Engineeringleadershipeducation:

Asnapshotreviewofinternationalgoodpractice

WhitePapersponsoredbytheBernardM.Gordon‐MIT

EngineeringLeadershipProgram

DrRuthGraham(ruth@rhgraham.org)

DrEdwardCrawley,Director,Gordon‐MITELP(crawley@mit.edu)

BruceR.Mendelsohn,CommunicationsDirector,Gordon‐MITELP(brucem@mit.edu)

Executivesummary

Thissummaryreportpresentsthefindingsofasnapshotreviewofengineeringleadership

educationconductedbetweenSeptember2008andMarch2009.Thereviewaimstoprovide

insightintocurrentprovision,highlightinternationalvariationsinapproachandidentify

examplesofgoodpractice.Itdoesnotthereforeprovideanexhaustivesurveyofthefield.

Muchoftheinformationgatheredduringthereviewwascollectedthroughdetailedinterviews

withinternationalexpertsinengineeringeducationanddirectorsofestablishedengineering

leadershipprograms.Over70individualswereconsultedandover40programswere

investigated.

Threekeyobservationsemergefromthereview.

Firstly,thereisadistinctdividebetweentheUSandtherestoftheworldinbothattitudeand

approachtoengineeringleadershipeducation.Duringtheinterviewphaseofthestudy,it

becameapparentthattheUS‐basedexpertsarefamiliarandcomfortablewiththeconceptof

targeting‘leadership’asaspecificthemewithinengineeringeducation.However,thereis

greaterdiscomfortamongstthenon‐USintervieweeswiththisapproach,whichisseentorun

countertoaneducationalculturethatemphasizesinclusivenessandequality.

Secondly,thevastmajorityofprogramsofengineeringleadershipeducationidentifiedinthe

studyarebasedwithintheUSandmostarerelativelynew(developedinthelast5years).US‐

basedprogramstypicallyfallinoneofthefollowingtwocategories:(i)thosebasedaround

leadership/management‘theory’,oftenwithastrongpartnershipwiththeuniversity’sbusiness

school,and(ii)thosebasedaroundteamprojectswithaglobal,environmentalorservicetheme.

Mostnon‐USprogramsidentifiedinthereviewhavebeeninoperationforovertenyearsand

typicallyfallintooneormoreofthefollowingcategories:(i)thoseinvolving‘coaching’ofmore

juniorstudents,(ii)thoseinvolvingindustry‐based‘real‐world’projects,wheretheentire

programisfundedthroughcompanies‘sponsoring’oneormoreteam,and(iii)thosebased

aroundteamprojectswithaglobal,environmentalorservicetheme.

Thirdly,thereviewuncoversasurprisingdearthofresources,expertiseandformalnetworks

currentlyavailableinthefieldofengineeringleadershipeducation.Thisfindingisinsharp

contrasttotherelateddisciplinesof‘engineeringentrepreneurshipeducation’and‘global

engineeringeducation’,forwhichstrongcommunitiesandresourceshaveemergedoverrecent

years.Opportunitiesclearlyexisttodevelopnewpartnerships,knowledgeandnetworksinthis

emergingfield.

Thereportalsopresentsexamplesofinternationalgoodpracticeinengineeringleadership

education.Theseexamplesaregroupedintotwocategories:(i)‘explicit’programs,where

engineeringleadershipdevelopmentistheprimaryandexplicitobjective,and(ii)‘non‐explicit’

programs,wheretheengineeringleadershipdevelopmentisembeddedwithinabroaderremit.

Examplespresentedofgoodpracticewithan‘explicit’leadershipobjectiveincludethe

EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinoratPennStateUniversity,theGordon‐MIT

EngineeringLeadershipProgramatMIT,theEngineeringLeadershipProgramatIowaState

UniversityandLeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironmentatMonashUniversity.Examples

presentedofgoodpracticewitha‘non‐explicit’leadershipagendaincludetheConstructionarium

intheUK,theEngineeringCulturescourseatVirginiaTech,andtheEWBChallengecoordinated

byEngineersWithoutBordersAustralia.

Acknowledgements

ThisreportwasundertakenwithfinancialsupportfromtheGordon‐MITEngineeringLeadership

ProgramatMIT.

Iamparticularlygratefultotheengineeringfaculty,programstaffandengineeringstudentsfrom

acrosstheworldwhocontributedsogenerouslytothereviewbygivingtheirtimeandsharing

theirknowledgeandexpertise.

Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1

2 Overallobservations............................................................................................................3

2.1 Theinternationalfieldofengineeringleadershipeducation..........................................3

2.2 Currentandfuturetrends .............................................................................................5

3 Theinternationalpicture:regionalvariationsinapproach...................................................8

3.1 Europe ..........................................................................................................................8

3.2 NorthAmerica ..............................................................................................................9

3.3 Australasia ..................................................................................................................11

3.4 Asia,AfricaandSouthAmerica ...................................................................................12

4 Internationalgoodpractice ...............................................................................................14

4.1 Explicitleadershipprograms .......................................................................................14

4.2 Non‐explicitleadershipprograms................................................................................15

5 Casestudies.......................................................................................................................17

5.1 Casestudy1:EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinor–PennStateUniversity ....17

5.2 Casestudy2:EngineeringLeadershipProgram–IowaStateUniversity.......................19

5.3 Casestudy3:Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram‐MIT...............................19

5.4 Casestudy4:LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironment–MonashUniversity...........25

6 Concludingcomments .......................................................................................................28

AppendixA. Individualsinterviewed/consulted....................................................................30

A.1. NorthAmerica ...........................................................................................................30

A.2. Europe .......................................................................................................................31

A.3. Restoftheworld .......................................................................................................32

AppendixB. Summarytableofselectedprograms................................................................34

1

1 Introduction

Thissummaryreportpresentsthefindingsofa‘snap‐shot’reviewofinternationalgoodpractice

inengineeringleadershipeducation,conductedbetweenSeptember2008andMarch2009.The

reviewfocusesoncurricularandco‐curricularprogramsthatprincipallycatertoengineering

undergraduates.Thedefinitionofengineeringleadershipusedinthereviewisbasedonthe

‘capabilitiesofanengineeringleader’identifiedbytheGordon‐MITEngineeringLeadership

Program,asoutlinedbelow.

CoreValuesandCharacter

Initiativeanddecisionmaking(responsibility,integrity,loyalty,self‐awareness,personalvision)

Sensemaking Makingsenseoftheworldaroundus(theneedsofsociety,technology,systemthinking,solutionjudgment)

Relating Developingkeyrelationshipsandnetworks(listeningandseekingcompromise,communicatingandadvocating,wideconnections,enterprise)

Visioning Creatingacompellingimageofthefuture(tappingcreativity,definingsolutions,creatingconcepts)

Realizingthevision Gettingthejobdone(buildingateam,managingaproject,innovating,inventing,implementingandoperating)

Technicalknowledgeandcriticalreasoning

Groundinginthedisciplinaryfundamentals(problemsolving,criticalthinking,inquiry)

Thereportisnotanexhaustiveexaminationofthefield,butseekstoprovideaninsightinto

currentpractice,highlightinternationalvariationsinapproachandidentifyexamplesofgood

practice.Muchoftheinformationgatheredduringthereviewhasbeencollectedthrough

detailedinterviewswithinternationalexpertsinengineeringeducationanddirectorsof

establishedengineeringleadershipprograms.Theprocessadoptedforthestudyisoutlined

below.

1. Backgroundreviewandstudy:literaturesearchandreviewtoidentifythebroad

spectrumofinternationalactivitiesinengineeringleadershipeducationandrelated

initiatives.

2. Targetedinterviewswithinternationalexpertsinbothengineeringeducationand

engineeringleadershipeducation:interviewswithinternationalleadersto:

a. betterunderstandglobaltrendsinthefield,

2

b. identifythemosthighly‐regardedprogramsaroundtheworld,and

c. identifyotherexpertsinthefieldforfollow‐upinterviews.

3. Investigationoftargetedprograms:furtherinvestigationofthemosthighlyregarded

programsthroughdetailedinterviewswithprogramstaff,undergraduateparticipantsand

relatedfaculty.

Duringtheresearchphaseofthisstudy,over70expertshavebeenconsulted(aslistedin

AppendixA)andover40programshavebeeninvestigated.

Allweb‐sitereferencesgiveninthisreportwerelastaccessedon5thMay2009.

3

2 Overallobservations

2.1 Theinternationalfieldofengineeringleadershipeducation

Muchoftheinformationgatheredinthisstudyhasbeencollectedthroughdiscussionswith

internationalexpertsinengineeringeducation.Theseinterviewsindicatethatengineering

leadershipeducation,asasub‐discipline,isnotcurrentlyontheradarofmostengineering

educationexpertsoutsidetheUS.Theinterviewprocessalsorevealedalevelofdiscomfortwith

thenotionof‘leadershipeducation’bymanyofthenon‐USinterviewees,astheyfeltthatthis

conceptrancountertotheireducationalcultureofinclusivenessandequality.Inthesecases,

however,theintervieweeswereabletoidentifywithallofthecharacteristicsoftheengineering

leaderasdefinedbytheGordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,andtheywereableto

highlightexamplesofgoodpracticeonthisbasis.

AverycleardividewasthereforeapparentbetweentheresponsesfromtheUSintervieweesand

thenon‐USinterviewees.TheUSintervieweesweregenerallycomfortablewiththeconceptof

educatingundergraduatesin‘leadership’,wereabletoidentifyprogramsinengineering

leadership,butweretypicallyonlyfamiliarwiththeengineeringeducationsceneintheUS.The

non‐USintervieweestendedtobemuchmorefamiliarwiththeinternationalscenein

engineeringeducation,butwerelessengagedwith‘leadership’asaspecificdisciplineand

tendedtoidentifyexamplesofgoodpracticeinwhichleadershipdevelopmentisembeddedina

broaderprogram.Forthisreason,theinternationalapproachestoengineeringleadership

educationdiscussedinthisreportaredividedintotwocategories:

1. ‘Explicit’–programswhereengineeringleadershipdevelopmentistheprimaryand

explicitobjective.

2. ‘Non‐explicit’–programswhichinvolveengineeringleadershipdevelopment,butthis

maynotbeexplicitand/ormaybeembeddedwithinabroaderremitorprogram.

Furtherdiscussiononthedifferingregionalapproachestoengineeringleadershipeducationis

giveninthefollowingsectionofthisreport(Section3).

Thereareanumberofstrongcommonthreadsrunningacrossmanyoftheprogramsof

engineeringleadershipeducationidentifiedinthestudywithrespecttotheiroperationand

management:

4

• Aswithmanynovelengineeringeducationinitiatives,theprogramsidentifiedinthis

studyareoftendirectedbyarelativelyhigh‐profile,highlypassionatechampion,on

whomthesuccessandcontinuationoftheprogramlargelyrests.

• Manyprogramsoperateonarelativelysmallbudgetwithaverysmallprojectteam–in

manycasestheteamsimplycomprisesapart‐timedirectorandapart‐orfull‐time

administrativeassistant.

• Almosteveryprogramdirectorinterviewedhasexperiencedsignificantdifficultiesin

identifyingandemployingsuitablyqualifiedstafftobothdesignanddeliverthe

programs.

• Alargenumberoftheprogramsidentifiedoperateoutsideoftheformalengineering

curriculum.Manyprogramdirectorscommentedthatthiswas,inpart,duetoalackof

resourcesand/oralackofengagementinthefieldofengineeringleadershipbythecore

engineeringfaculty.Oftenthisindependencefromboththecurriculumanddepartmental

proceduresallowsformorecreativeeducationalapproachesandamuchgreater

flexibilityinthestructureanddesignoftheprograms.Forthisreason,anumberof

programsinvestigatedinthestudywereabletolaunchtheiroperations,securefunding,

designtheactivitiesandwelcomethefirstcohortofstudents,allwithinamatterofafew

weeks.

• Sometensionisapparentinmanyinstitutionsbetweenthebusinessschoolsandthe

engineeringschools,intermsofwhoshouldbe‘owning’andoperatingtheprograms.In

almosteverycase,engineeringleadershipprogramsarehostedwithintheschoolof

engineeringorequivalent.Itwasclearlyfeltthatsuchprogramsshouldcontinuetobe

hostedwithinengineeringschoolsinordertoprovidetherequiredacademicand

professionalcontextforthestudentswhenseekingtoapplyandreflectontheir

developingleadershipabilities.

Oneinterestingfindingthatemergedthroughthestudyisthedearthofformalnetworks,events

andresearchprogramsinengineeringleadershipeducation.Thisisinstarkcontrasttothe

5

paralleleducationalthemesof‘engineeringentrepreneurship’and‘globalengineering’,forwhich

anumberofformallearningcommunities1,2,resourcecentres3,4andannualevents5,6exist.Very

limitednumbersofresearchprogramshavebeenidentifiedinthefieldofengineeringleadership

education.Themajorityofthisworkisofmodestambition,linkeddirectlytospecificeducational

programs,andmainlyfocusedontheareaofstudentassessment.

2.2 Currentandfuturetrends

Acrosstheworld,themissionstatementsofmanyundergraduateengineeringdegreesinclude

aspirationssuchas‘…toproduceengineeringleadersforthe21stCentury’.However,themajority

ofprogramsappeartohavenoformalorarticulatedmechanismtodelivertheleadership

componentofthisgoal,beyond(typically)studentinvolvementinproject‐orproblem‐based

learningactivities.

AsimpleInternetsearchofengineeringleadershipeducationwillrevealawidevarietyof

programscurrentlybeingofferedatundergraduatelevel,manyofwhicharebasedintheUS.

Wheninvestigatedmoreclosely,however,itappearsthatmanyofthesearenotcoherent

programsdesignedforengineeringstudents,butsimplypulltogetheraseriesofpre‐existing

modulesfromacrosstheuniversitywithperhapsoneadditionalteam‐basedprojectattheendof

thesequence.

Whereprogramsofengineeringleadershipeducationhavebeenspecifically‘designed’,theytend

tofallintooneormoreofthefollowingcategories:

1. thosebasedaroundleadershipandmanagement‘theory’,oftenincludingastrong

partnershipwiththeinstitution’sbusinessschoolor‘leadership’centre,

2. thosebasedaroundteamprojectswithaglobal,environmentalorservicefocus,

3. thoseinvolving‘coaching’ofmorejuniorstudents,usuallyinprojectteams,and

1 Entrepreneurship Division, American Society for Engineering Education (http://www.asee-ent.org/) 2 Online Journal for Global Engineering Education (http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ojgee/) 3 GlobalHUB (http://globalhub.org/) 4 Entrepreneurship Corner, Stanford Technology Ventures Program (http://stvp.stanford.edu/outreach/educators-corner.html) 5 Roundtable on Entrepreneurship Education, Stanford Technology Ventures Program (http://ree.stanford.edu/) 6 International Colloquium on International Engineering Education (http://www.uri.edu/iep/colloquia/)

6

4. thoseinvolvingindustry‐based‘real‐world’projects,wheretheentireprogramisfunded

throughcompanies‘sponsoring’oneormoreteam.

Forthevastmajorityofprogramsinvestigated,theirinceptionwasoriginallymotivatedbyoneof

thefollowingdrivers:

1. todevelopleaderswhoareabletooperateeffectivelyinsideandoutsidetheengineering

profession.Manyintervieweesweremotivatedbyadesiretoseeworldleaders,inall

spheres,whohadbeeneducatedasengineers.

2. toensurethattheirnationimprovesormaintainsitsgloballycompetitiveposition.This

visionisparticularlyevidentinUS‐basedprograms.

Mostprogramsidentifiedinthisstudyareeitherrelativelynewintheirinception(lessthan10

yearsold)oroperateinrelativeisolationwithinthegeographicalregion.Perhapsforthose

reasons,veryfewoftheprogramsidentifiedbasedtheirprovisiononexistingmodelsof

engineeringleadershipeducation.Themajorityofprogramsinvestigatedwereeitherdeveloped

followingnopriorexternalresearch,orelsewerebasedonmodelsfoundingeneralleadership

education,thosefoundinindustryorthoseusedinthemilitary.

Onemajorcurrenttrendinengineeringleadershipeducationisthedevelopmentofthestudents’

globalawarenessandtheirabilitytoworkoncomplexcross‐nationalprojects–whichisseenby

manyastheenvironmentwithinwhichtheengineeringleaderofthefuturewillneedtooperate.

Manyoftheprogramswhichweremosthighlyratedbyintervieweesincorporatesomeglobal

elementseitherthroughinternationaltravel,remotelink‐upswithoverseas

universities/companiesorprojectbriefsinvolvinganinternationalorcross‐culturalcontext.The

trendtowardsamore‘global’viewofleadershipeducationwasseenbymanyofthe

intervieweesasonethatwouldcontinue.

Themajorityofprogramsidentifiedinthisstudyusesomeformofpsychometrictestingofthe

studentsaspartoftheirleadershipdevelopment.Inmostcases,thisisusedinconjunctionwith

someformofleadershipdevelopment‘journal’and/oron‐goingindividualmentoring.Another

emergingtheme,particularlyamongstthemosthigh‐ratedprograms,istheprovisionofa

flexibleeducationthatistailoredtothechangingneedsofeachindividualstudent.

7

Duringtheinterviewprocess,threerelatedtrendswerepredictedforengineeringleadership

educationinthefuture:

1. globalengineering:increasingfocusonthestudents’abilitytooperateincomplex,

internationalmulti‐disciplinaryteams,withastrongerawarenessofnationalandcultural

differencesintheirapproachtoengineeringproblems.

2. programcollaborations:greaterdevelopmentofcross‐nationalpartnershipsbetween

engineeringleadershipprograms,inparttoofferstudentsgreater‘global’exposure.

3. self‐analysisandreflection:awareness‐buildingofthestudents’personalskillset,

analysisofhowthiswillimpacttheirownleadershipabilityandprovisionofatailored

programtoaccommodatethestudents’individualdevelopmentneeds.

8

3 Theinternationalpicture:regionalvariationsinapproach

Thereviewhighlightssomeinterestinggeographicaldifferencesinbothattitudeandapproachto

engineeringleadershipeducationacrosstheworld.Themoststrikingobservationisthatthevast

majority,probably80‐90%,ofprogramswhichexplicitlyfocusonleadershiparebasedintheUS.

Outlinedbelowisasummaryofthecurrentstatusofengineeringleadershipeducationbyregion,

asidentifiedinthereview.

3.1 Europe

Thenotionofeducatingstudentsinleadershipclearlydoesnotsitcomfortablywithmany

engineeringfacultyinEurope,andveryfewEuropeanprogramshavebeenidentifiedinthestudy

thatexplicitlyusethetermleadershipinthecoursedescription.Theoverallvisibilityof

engineeringleadershipeducationasadisciplineisalsoverylow–almostalloftheleadersof

existingengineeringleadershipprogramsinterviewedwereunawareofothercomparable

activitiesacrossEuropeorworldwide.However,themajorityofEuropeanprogramsidentifiedin

thisreviewhavebeeninoperationforover10years.

WithinEurope,theUKisthemostactivecountryintheprovisionof‘explicit’programsin

engineeringleadership.UK‐basedexamplesincludetheTeamworkandLeadershipmoduleat

LoughboroughUniversity7,theEngineeringLeadershipAdvancedAwardforUndergraduatesrun

bytheRoyalAcademyofEngineering8andtheEngineeringDesignMEngdegreeatBristol

University9.

AnumberEuropeanengineeringschoolshavedevelopedpeertutoringmodelswithastrong

leadershipelement,wheremoreseniorstudents‘coach’juniorstudentprojectteams.An

exampleofsuchamodelistheProjectManagementinPractice10courseattheUniversitatRovira

iVirgili,Spain,whereselectedfourthyearstudentsleadfirstyeargroupdesignprojectteams.

7 Teamwork and Leadership Module, Civil and Building Engineering, University of Loughborough (http://cisinfo.lboro.ac.uk/epublic/WP5015.module_spec?select_mod=08CVD017) 8 Engineering Leadership Advanced Award Scheme for Undergraduates, Royal Academy of Engineering (http://www.raeng.org.uk/education/undergrad/ela/default.htm) 9 Engineering Design MEng, Bristol University (http://www.edes.bris.ac.uk/index.html) 10 Ozgen,S., Alabart, J.R. and Medir, M. (2008) A 360º-Degree Feedback Process to Assist Senior Engineering Students in Their Leadership Development, SEFI 36th Annual Conference on Quality Assessment, Employability and Innovation, July 2-5, Aalborg, Denmark

9

Thisexperienceissupportedbyleadershipdevelopmentmodulesandintensivetutoringforthe

studentstoreflectonandlearnfromtheirleadershipexperiences.Manysuch‘coaching‐based’

programswereoriginallymotivatedbydepartmentalresourceconstraints,withmoresenior

undergraduatesbeingtrainedandpaidtosupervisegroupprojects.Forexample,intheFaculty

ofAerospaceEngineeringattheDelftUniversityofTechnology11,carefullyselectedthird‐year

studentsareprovidedwithtrainingandpaidasteachingassistantstosupervisefirstandsecond

yearprojectgroups.

AcrossEurope,manyoftheprogramsthatincorporateleadershipelementsalsohaveastrong

focusonglobalandcross‐culturalteaming.Forexample,studentsparticipatingintheGlobal

EngineeringTeams12programattheTechnischeUniversitätBerlininGermanyworkinteams

withstudentsfromacrossanumberofdifferentcontinentstodeliveraprojectorproducttoa

strictsetofdeadlines.

3.2 NorthAmerica

Thevastmajorityof‘explicit’engineeringleadershipprogramsarebasedintheUS.Theofferings

rangefromsmallextra‐curricularprogramsthroughtoengineeringminorsandevenincludean

engineeringschoolthathasidentifiedleadershiptobethecentralthemeoftheirengineering

education13.US‐basedintervieweeswereverycomfortableandfamiliarwiththeconceptof

educating‘leaders’.Theonlyconcernraisedrelatedtotheabilityofcurrentengineeringfaculty

todelivereffectiveleadershipprogramsandthedifficultiesofidentifyingsuitablyqualifiedstaff

fromoutsidetheirowninstitution.ThemajorityofengineeringleadershipprogramsintheUS

havebeendevelopedfollowingtheintroductionoftheABETEngineeringCriteria2000,witha

significantnumberestablishedinthepast5years.

US‐basedprogramstendtofallintotwocategories:

(i) thosebasedaroundleadership/management‘theory’,oftenwithastrongpartnership

withtheuniversity’sbusinessschool,and

11 Andernach, J.A. and Saunders-Smits, G.N. (2006) The Use of Teaching Assistants in Project Based Learning at Aerospace Engineering, ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 28-31, San Diego, CA 12 Global Engineering Teams, Technische Universität Berlin (http://www.global-engineering-teams.org/) 13 Lyle School of Engineering, Southern Methodist University (http://lyle.smu.edu/)

10

(ii) thosebasedaroundteamprojectswithaglobal,environmentalorservicetheme.

Ingeneral,theprogramsmosthighlyratedbythoseinterviewedinthisstudyfallintothelatter

category.

The‘global’themeisparticularlystrongwithinUSprograms.ManyUSfacultymembers

identifiedalackofglobalexperienceorunderstandingasamajorweaknessoftheirengineering

students–itwasobservedbyanumberofthoseinterviewedthatmanyoftheirstudentshad

neverlefttheirownstate.Theabilitytoworkeffectivelyacrossculturesinaninternational

sphereisclearlyseenbymanyasanincreasinglyvitalelementofanengineerleader,whichis

reflectedinmanyoftheprograms.ExamplesincludetheEngineeringGlobalLeadershipHonors

ProgramattheUniversityofMichigan14andtheEngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinorat

PennStateUniversity15.Anumberofhighly‐ratedprogramsin‘globalengineering’forwhich

leadershipdevelopmentisanon‐explicitgoalemergedinthestudy,suchastheGlobal

EngineeringProgramatPurdueUniversity16.

AnotherstrongthemewithinUSengineeringleadershipeducationis‘studentempowermentin

theirownleadershipdevelopment’,andmanyprogramsarepartiallyoralmostfullymanaged

anddeliveredbythestudentsthemselves.Examplesincludetheextra‐curricularCAMPprogram

atSouthDakotaSchoolofMines17andtheEngineeringLeadershipProgramatIowaState

University18.

Perhapsthemostambitiousprogramofengineeringleadershipeducationinvestigatedinthe

studyistherecentlyestablishedGordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram19,basedatMIT.

Theprogramcombinesasuiteofeducationalactivitiestodeveloptheleadershipcapabilitiesof

theundergraduateengineersatMITwithabroadernationalroletoimprovetheleadership

capabilitiesoffutureUSengineeringgraduates.Inpursuitofthesegoals,theprogramhas

14 Engineering Global Leadership Honors Program, University of Michigan (http://www.engin.umich.edu/egl/) 15 Engineering Leadership Development Minor, Penn State University (http://www.eldm.psu.edu/) 16 Global Engineering Program, Purdue University (https://engineering.purdue.edu/GEP/) 17 Center of Excellence for Advanced Manufacturing and Production (CAMP), South Dakota School of Mines (http://camp.sdsmt.edu/index.php) 18 Engineering Leadership Program, Iowa State University (http://www.eng.iastate.edu/leadership/index.asp) 19 Gordon-MIT Engineering Leadership Program, MIT (http://web.mit.edu/gordonelp/)

11

alreadysecuredexternalfundingof$20m,withaviewtomatchingthissumoverthenextfew

years.

Anumberof‘engineeringentrepreneurship’programsintheUSarebasedonbroaddefinitions

ofentrepreneurshipwhichencompassesasignificantfocusonleadership,suchastheStanford

TechnologyVenturesProgramatStanfordUniversity20.US‐basedactivityalsoincludestheCentre

forEngineeringLeadershipandLearningattheUniversityofCentralFlorida21.Thisgroupis

seekingtodevelopneweducationalprograms,offertrainingandresourcesinthefieldof

engineeringleadership,andundertakeresearchintothe‘scienceoflearningandteaching

engineeringleadership’.

Eachyear,theNationalAcademyofEngineeringawardstheGordonPrize22toaUS‐based

engineeringeducationprogramwhichdisplays‘newmodalitiesandexperimentsineducation

thatdevelopeffectiveengineeringleadersacrosstheUS’.Sinceitsinceptionin2001,the$500k

prizehasbeenawardedtoanumberoftheprogramshighlightedinthisstudy.

OnlytwoengineeringleadershipprogramshavebeenidentifiedinCanada:(i)theLeadersof

TomorrowprogramatTorontoUniversity23,whichcombinescurricular,co‐curricularandextra‐

curricularactivities,and(ii)aMastersofEngineeringandPublicPolicyandaMastersof

EngineeringDesignofferedbytheWalterG.BoothSchoolofEngineeringPracticeatMcMaster

University24.

3.3 Australasia

AswiththeEuropeaninterviewees,manyoftheAustralasianengineeringeducatorsinterviewed

expresseddiscomfortwiththeconceptofselectiveprogramsinleadershipdevelopment.

Concernswereparticularlyfocusedonhowstudentsshouldbeselectedforsuchprogramsand

onwhetherleadershipabilityorpotentialcanbedemonstratedinanapplicationprocess.

20 Stanford Technology Ventures Program, Stanford University (http://stvp.stanford.edu/) 21 Centre for Engineering Leadership and Learning, University of Central Florida (http://www.engineeringleadership.us/) 22 Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education (http://www.nae.edu/nae/awardscom.nsf/weblinks/DWHT-4UJPVA?OpenDocument) 23 Leaders of Tomorrow, University of Toronto (http://www.undergrad.engineering.utoronto.ca/students/vice-dean/leaders.htm) 24 Walter G. Booth School of Engineering Practice, McMaster University (http://msep.mcmaster.ca/)

12

Onlyone‘explicit’programinengineeringleadershiphasbeenidentifiedinAustralasia–the

LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironmentprogramatMonashUniversity25.Thisprogramoffers

athreeyearco‐curricularleadershipdevelopmentexperiencetothetoptierofengineering

studentswiththehighestentryqualifications.

Anumberofengineeringschoolsoffer‘highpotential’fellowshipprograms,oftenlinkedtoa

studentscholarship,thatprovidearangeofleadershipdevelopmentopportunities.Examples

includetheDean’sScholarsProgramatQueenslandUniversityofTechnology26.

TheAustraliangovernmentrequiresallengineeringstudentstoparticipateinanindustrial

experiencewheretheyworkunderthedirectsupervisionofanindustryprofessional.This

mandatoryexperienceisseentoprovidestudentswithsignificantleadershipdevelopment

opportunities.Inaddition,theAustralianaccreditationsystemhasbeenoutcomes‐drivenfor

nearly15years,whichhasresultedinanincreasedfocusonstudents’personalandprofessional

development.AcrossAustralia,therearemanyexamplesof‘non‐explicit’programswhere

leadershipisembeddedintocoursesorprojects.OneexampleistheEngineersWithoutBorders

Challengeprogram27wherefirst‐yearengineeringstudentsfromuniversitiesacrossAustraliaare

providedwitharealdesignbrieffromthedevelopingworldandaskedtoproduce‘engineering

anddesignsolutionsthataretailoredtothelocalsocial,cultural,political,environmentaland

economiccontext’.

3.4 Asia,AfricaandSouthAmerica

ThestudyrevealedadearthofengineeringleadershipprogramsacrossAsia,AfricaandSouth

America.Althoughsomeinterestingprogramshavebeenidentified,thesetendtooperatein

isolationandtheprogramleadersareoftenunawareofanyotherleadershipprogramsavailable

intheirregion.NoprogramswereidentifiedinAfrica.

25 Leadership in a Technological Environment, Monash University (http://www.eng.monash.edu.au/current-students/merit/leadership/) 26 Dean’s Scholars Program, Queensland University of Technology (http://www.bee.qut.edu.au/study/scholarships/commencing/deans.jsp) 27 Engineers Without Borders (EWB) Challenge, EWB Australia (http://www.ewb.org.au/ewbchallenge/)

13

AmongalmostallprogramsidentifiedinAsiaandSouthAmericaisaverystrong‘global’theme.

Forexample,theGlobalLeadershipEngineeringEducationProgram28atKyotoUniversityfocuses

onthedevelopmentofgloballeaderswithastrongcross‐culturalunderstanding.

Anumberofleadershipprogramsarestructuredaroundproject‐basedindustryplacements

alongsidesupplementaryleadershipdevelopmentcoursesandopportunityforstudentsto

reflectonanddeveloptheirleadershipstyle.Oneexampleofsuchanapproachisatthe

UniversidadedeSãoPauloinBrazil,withaprogramthatcanberoughlytranslatedas‘Programof

capacity‐buildinginleadership’.

Anumberofinstitutions,particularlyinAsia,areinvolvedwithUS‐basedengineeringleadership

programs.Forexample,RiceUniversity,alongwithanumberofUS‐basedpartneruniversities,

offertheINNOVATE29program–a10‐daysymposium,heldindifferentregionsofAsiaeachyear,

for60‐70USandregionalengineeringstudents.Thisexperienceseekstodevelopthestudents’

abilitytomakeculturallysensitivedecisions.

ManyuniversitiesacrossAsiahaverecentlystartedlookingathowleadershipmightbe

integratedintotheengineeringcurriculum.However,mostoftheseinitiativesareatanearly

stage,andareonlylikelytoproducemodestleadershipelementswhichareembeddedinto

groupprojectwork.Forexample,from2005allengineeringprogramsinMalaysiahavebeen

requiredbytheMinistryofHigherEducationtoincludeanumberofprofessionalskills(including

leadership)withinthelearningoutcomes.Inresponse,anumberofuniversitieshavestartedto

developaproblem‐basedlearningapproachtomanyelementsoftheundergraduateengineering

education,with‘leadershipdevelopment’embeddedwithinthisstructure.

28 Global Leadership Engineering Education Program, Kyoto University (http://www.t.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/undergrad/lectures/glprogram) 29 INNOVATE (http://innovate.rice.edu/)

14

4 Internationalgoodpractice

Aspartofthestudy,expertsfromacrosstheworldwereinvitedtomakeajudgmenton

internationalbestpracticeinengineeringleadershipeducation.Throughcompilingthese

judgments,ithasbeenpossibletoidentifyanumberofprogramsthatareparticularlyhighly

regardedinthecommunity.Thissectionprovidesasummaryofthese‘goodpractice’

approaches.

AsdiscussedinSection2,twodistinctcategoriesofprogramhavebeenidentifiedinthisstudy–

onesforwhichleadershipisanexplicitlydefinedfocusandonesthatembedthedevelopmentof

leadershipcharacteristicswithinabroaderremit.Forthisreason,theexamplesofinternational

goodpracticediscussedinthissectionarepresentedwithineachofthesetwocategories.

ProvidedinAppendixBisatablethatsummarisestheactivitiesofeighthighly‐regarded

engineeringleadershipprogramsfromacrosstheworld.

4.1 Explicitleadershipprograms

Thevastmajorityof‘explicit’engineeringleadershipundergraduateprogramsarebasedwithin

theUS,andinevitablythisiswheremanyoftheexamplesofgoodpracticewereidentified.A

numberofprogramswereparticularlyhighlyratedduringtheinterviewprocess,aslistedbelow.

• D.School30,StanfordUniversity

• EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinor15,PennStateUniversity

• EngineeringLeadershipProgram18,IowaStateUniversity

• Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram19,MIT

• LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironment25,MonashUniveristy

ItshouldbenotedthattheprogramsatIowaState,MITandMonasharestillintheearlystages

ofdevelopment.

Therewereanumberofotherengineeringleadershipprogramsidentifiedthatdonotholdthe

levelofnationalorinternationalvisibilityofthoselistedabove,butwhichwereneverthelessvery

highlyratedbyanumberofinterviewees.Theseprogramsinclude:

30 Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (‘D.School’), Stanford University (http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/)

15

• CenterofExcellenceforAdvancedManufacturingandProduction17,SouthDakotaSchool

ofMines

• LeadersofTomorrow23,UniversityofToronto,Canada

• LyleSchoolofEngineering13,SouthernMethodistUniversity(SMU)

• TeamworkandLeadershipModule7,LoughboroughUniversity,UK

• TheArcherCenterforStudentLeadershipDevelopment31,RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute

ItshouldbenotedthattheProgramatSMUisstillintheveryearlystagesofdevelopment.

Anumberofindustry‐basedengineeringleadershipdevelopmentprogramswerealsowidely

recommended.TheseincludetheEngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentProgramatLockheed

Martin32.

4.2 Non‐explicitleadershipprograms

Theidentificationofbestpracticeapproachesinwhich‘leadership’isnotexplicitbutembedded

withinbroaderprogramshasproventobeaninterestingchallenge.Evenwithinthe‘explicit’

programsdescribedinSection4.1,definitionsof‘leadership’varyconsiderablyandresultin

quitesignificantdifferencesinemphasis.Withouttheformallabel,theidentificationof

programsthatembed‘leadershipdevelopment’hasbeenbasedonthesubjectivejudgmentof

theindividualsinterviewedduringthestudyandthatoftheauthor.

Outlinedbelowisaselectionofthehighly‐rated‘non‐explicit’engineeringleadershipprograms

fromacrosstheworld.

• Constructionarium33,UKuniversityandindustrypartnership

• EngineeringClinic34,HarveyMuddCollege

• EngineeringCultures35,VirginiaTech

31 The Archer Center for Student Leadership Development, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (http://archer.union.rpi.edu/) 32 Engineering Leadership Development Program, Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartinjobs.com/college_leadershipdev_engineering.asp) 33 Constructionarium, UK university and industry consortium (http://www.constructionarium.co.uk/) 34 Engineering Clinic, Harvey Mudd College (http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/index.php?page=Clinic.php) 35 Engineering Cultures, Virginia Tech (http://www.engcultures.sts.vt.edu/overview.html)

16

• EWBChallenge27,EngineersWithoutBordersAustraliaandAustralianuniversity

partnership

• GlobalEngineeringAllianceforResearchandEducation36(GEARE)andEngineering

ProjectsinCommunityService(EPICS)37,bothatPurdueUniversity

• GlobalEngineeringTeams12,TechnischeUniversitätBerlin,Germany

Whenaskedtoidentifybestpracticeapproachestoengineeringleadership,manynon‐US

intervieweesalsospokeaboutsuccessfulapproachesusingproblem‐basedlearning.Aalborg

UniversityandOlinCollegeofEngineeringwerebothwidelycitedandhighlyrecommendedin

thisregard.

36 Global Engineering Alliance for Research and Education (GEARE), Purdue University (https://engineering.purdue.edu/GEP/Programs/GEARE/) 37 Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS), Purdue University (http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/)

17

5 Casestudies

Outlinedinthissectionarefourcasestudyexamplesofgoodpractice.Thecasestudieshave

beeneachselectedtohighlightastrongthemeortrendininternationalengineeringleadership

educationthatemergedduringthestudy,asoutlinedbelow.

• Programswithastrongfocusonglobalengineeringleadership–EngineeringLeadership

DevelopmentMinor,PennStateUniversity

• Programswhosedesignandmanagementarestronglystudent‐led–Engineering

LeadershipProgram,IowaStateUniversity

• Highly‐selectiveprogramsprovidingintensiveandchallengingstudentexperiences–

Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT

• Co‐curricularprogramscateringforselected‘high‐potential’students–Leadershipina

TechnologicalEnvironment,MonashUniversity

5.1 Casestudy1:EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinor–PennStateUniversity

5.1.1 OverviewofProgram

TheEngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentProgram15(ELDP)atPennStatewasfirstlaunchedin

1995throughtheLeonhardCenterfortheEnhancementofEngineeringEducation38andoffers

studentsfromacrosstheuniversitytheopportunitytopursueaminorinengineeringleadership

development.TheEngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentminor(ELDM)‘usesacombinationofin‐

classdiscussion,internationaltravelandcontextuallearningtoteachleadershipskills’.Thereisa

significantfocusonsocially‐relevant,hands‐onprojects,manyofwhicharebasedoutsidetheUS,

whichseektoprovidea‘transformational’experienceforthestudentsinthedevelopmentof

theirleadershipoutlook.

TheELDPwasoneofthefirstengineeringleadershipprogramsintheUSanditsfocushasbeen

verymuchshapedbythedrivinginterestsofthethreedirectorswhohaveledtheprogramover

thepast10years–inturncenteringonbusinessleadership,personalleadershipandglobal

38 Leonhard Center for the Enhancement of Engineering Education, Penn State University (http://www.engr.psu.edu/leonhardcenter/)

18

leadership.Themostrecentdirector,DrRickSchuhmannhassignificantlyenhancedtheglobal

dimensiontotheprogram:‘Studentsintheprogramaretrainednotjustinleadershiptheoryand

skills,buttobegloballeaderswithknowledgeoftheworld,skillsincross‐culturalcommunication,

andexperienceinparticipatinginchangeprocessesinothercountries’.The‘global’elementsof

theprogramarehighlightedinblueintheELDMstructure,illustratedbelow.

TheELDPoperatesthroughtheSchoolofEngineeringDesign,TechnologyandProfessional

Programs(SEDTAPP).InadditiontotheELDM,SEDTAPPalsoofferaminorinEngineering

Entrepreneurship(E‐Ship),whichalsoreceivedanumberofstrongrecommendationsduringthe

review.Around90%oftheELDMparticipantsand60%oftheE‐Shipminorparticipantsare

engineeringmajorsandbothprogramsarecase‐studydrivenandbasedaroundactive‐learning.

5.1.2 Programstructureandfocus

TheELDMcomprisesatotalof18credits,ofwhich6creditsformthecompulsorycoreinthe

followingmodules:

• ENGR408‐LeadershipPrinciples

• ENGR493–LeadershipPracticum

• ENGR407‐Technology‐based

Entrepreneurship

StudentswhosuccessfullycompleteENGR

408andENGR493aretheneligibletotake

theminor.Theprogramsubsequentlyoffers

twopaths,withthe‘globaloption’allowing

thestudentstotraveltoeitherMoroccoor

Hungary.Currently,around50studentsper

yeartakethefullELDMwitharound

50%followingtheglobalpathway,althoughmanymoreopttotaketheindividualmodules.

Theobjectivesforthecoursearedescribedasfollows:‘Therearethreecommonlyaccepted

criticalattributesofaneffectiveleader:beingabletocommunicateasharedvision,

19

demonstratingintegrity,andfocusingonresults.Fiveadditionalfactorshaveemergedascritical

forleadersinthenew“flatworld”ofthe21stcentury:thinkingglobally,appreciatingcultural

diversity,developingtechnologicalsavvy,buildingpartnershipsandalliances,andsharing

leadership.Theseeightcoreattributes,aswellaspossessinganentrepreneurialmindset,serveas

thecornerstoneforthecourseeducationaloutcomes’.

ThestructureoftheELDMislikelytobe‘streamlined’inthefuture,suchthattheglobal

experiencesbecomethecoreelementoftheprogramratherthananoption.

TheELDPgroupiscurrentlyworkingwiththeLeonhardCenter38todevelopasetoftoolstoallow

themtoassesstheimpactoftheprogramontheparticipatingstudents.Duringthepastcouple

ofyears,theyhavedevelopedsurveyinstrumentstoassessleadershipdevelopmentthatwillbe

trialedoverthecomingyear.Preliminaryworkisalsounderwaytobetterunderstandthe

incrementalimpactofthethreeelementsoftheinternationalmodule(inturn,anacademic

studyofgloballeadership,remoteinternationallink‐upsandatravelelement)toseewhich

bringsthegreatestbenefittothestudentleadershipdevelopment.

5.2 Casestudy2:EngineeringLeadershipProgram–IowaStateUniversity

5.2.1 OverviewofProgram

TheEngineeringLeadershipProgram(ELP)atIowaStateisaco‐curricularprogramcurrentlyinits

thirdyearofoperation.TheELPwasinitiallyestablishedasa4‐yearpilotprogramfollowinga

$1mdonationfrom3M.Theprogramemploysaskeletonstaff(0.75FTEAcademicyearDirector

with0.5FTEsecretarialsupport),butisotherwiseentirelymanagedandoperatedbythestudent

participants.

Theprogramseekstodevelopengineerswhoareequippedtotakeonleadershiprolesboth

withinandoutsideengineeringandhasastrongfocusontheresponsibilityofengineerstobetter

society.Allparticipantscurrentlyreceivea$2500p.a.scholarship($10kintotal),althoughthisis

likelytobeallocatedonlyonaneeds‐basedsystemoncethepilotphaseoftheprojectis

completedin2010.

ParticipantstypicallyentertheELPintheirfreshmanyearandfollowtheprogramthroughout

theirfour‐yeardegree,althoughprovisionisalsomadeforstudentstoenteratlaterstagesin

20

theirstudies.Selectiontotheprogramismadebyacommitteeofstaff,students,faculty,alumni

andindustryandisbasedontheapplicants’academicachievementtodate,extra‐curricular

involvement,leadershipexperienceandinterestintheprogram.Theselectionprocessis

designedandmanagedbytheELPstudentparticipantsandwouldtypicallyaccept15students

fromover100applicantseachyear.

5.2.2 Programstructure

TheELPisstructuredintwophases,withyear1devotedtocommunity‐buildingandyears2‐4

providingamoreindividualizedprogramguidedbyasetofeightlearningoutcomesofa

leadershipmodel.Theleadershipmodelwasdesignedthroughaniterativegroupexerciseover

thecourseofayear,involvingstudents,staffandfacultyandprofessionalsfromthewiderIowa

Statecommunity,andprovidesacommonlanguageforgoalsettingandassessingprogress.A

significantfocusoftheupperyearsisthedevelopmentofa‘leadershiplearningproject’.An

outlineofthetwophasesisgivenbelow.

Year1activitiesinclude:

• LeadershipRetreat:anovernightoff‐campusteam‐buildingexperienceforstudentsas

theyjointheprogramasfreshmen,whichstartstointroduceleadershipconcepts.

• LeadershipSeminar:aweeklyone‐hourseminarsfocusingonleadershipskillsandstyles

ledbythestudentdirectorandincorporatingexternalspeakers.

• PeerMentorProgram:eachstudententeringtheprogramisallocatedwithamentor,

whowouldtypicallybeamoreseniormemberoftheELP.Meetingsareheldwith

mentorsonabi‐weeklybasisandtheforumisusedforsupportanddevelopment.

• FacultyMentorProgram:eachstudentselectsafacultymentorfromarosterof

volunteersupdatedannually.Scholarsareencouragedtomeetwiththefacultymentors

ingroupsof2‐3eachmonth.

• ServiceLearningProjects:duringthesecondsemester,studentsparticipateinaservice

learningproject,asamechanismtoapplyanddeveloptheirleadershipskills.

• ReflectionJournals:allstudentsarerequiredtocompletea‘reflectionjournal’each

week,whichisreviewedanddiscussed.Weeklytopicsaresuggestedforthesejournals,

21

althoughstudentsmayalsoselecttheirownareasoffocus,relatingittotheirpersonal

development.

Years2‐4activitiesinclude:

• CommunityBuildingRetreats:annualday‐longcommunitybuildingeventstore‐energize

andreconnectparticipantswiththeirpeergroups.

• LeadershipSeminar/LearningTracks:weeklyone‐hourseminarprovidesacommunity‐

buildingroleaswellasaforumfordiscussionanddevelopmentforthefirstsemester

afterthefreshmanyear.Forotherstherearesmallgroupthematiclearningtracks

and/orbookgroupstomaintainasenseofcommunitywhileallowingforscheduling

flexibility.

• LeadershipLearningProject:thisprojectisthemainfocusoftheELPfollowingthefirst

year,andstudentsidentifytheirownprojecttheme,basedontheirpersonalgoalsand

passions.Studentsareinitiallyaskedtosubmittheirproposedprojectunderoneoftwo

themes:(i)personaldevelopmentanddiscovery(short‐termprojectsaimingtohelp

studentstorefinetheirgoalsforthefuture)or(ii)action,engagementandcontribution

(longer‐termprojectsaimingtomakeanimpactonalocal,nationalorinternational

community).

• PersonalLeadershipPortfolio(e‐Doc):anelectronicportfolioforstudentstoplan,track

andreflectontheirleadershipdevelopment(asdiscussedbelow).

5.2.3 Trackingstudents’development

Asetof19studentcompetenciesisdefinedfortheprogram,groupedintofourthemes,as

outlinedbelow.ThesecompetenciessupporteightABEST‐alignedlearningoutcomes.

• LeadershipCharacteristics:initiative,integrity,analysisandjudgment,communication,

energyanddrive,

• EngagingOthers:buildingasuccessfulteam,developingothers,coaching,teamwork,

leadingthroughvisionandvalues,

• AwarenessandGrowth:engineeringknowledge,generalknowledge,culturaladaptability,

continuouslearning,and

22

• DemonstratingExcellence:qualityorientation,customerfocus,innovation,professional

impact,planning.

Theleadershipdevelopmentofstudentswithineachofthesecompetenciesistrackedusingan

electronicportfoliosystem,whichwasdevelopedin‐houseatIowaState.Throughthissystem,

studentsareabletocreatetheirownindividually‐customisedportfoliotosetgoals,track

progressandreflectontheirowndevelopment.Theseportfolioscanalsobesharedexternally

withsupervisors,otherprogrammembersorprospectiveemployers.

5.3 Casestudy3:Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram‐MIT

5.3.1 Programoverview

TheGordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram(Gordon‐MITELP)waslaunchedin2007,

followinga$20mgiftfrominventor,philanthropistandMITalumnusBernardM.Gordon,who

hasalong‐standingcommitmenttodeveloptheleadershipcapabilitiesofUSengineers.

Unlikeotherengineeringleadershipinitiativesidentifiedinthestudy,theGordon‐MITELP

combinesactivitiesofleadershipdevelopmentforitsownundergraduateengineerswitha

broaderaimofusingthiseducationalapproachtoinformandimproveengineeringleadership

educationacrosstheUS.TheMIT‐basedelementsoftheprogramofferacademiccoursesand

hands‐on,practicalexperiencesandarefocusedonthreeconcentricgroupsofengineering

students,cateringrespectivelyforthe‘all’,the‘many’andthe‘few’.Basedonthisdistinction,

theeducationalaimsarestatedas:

• togiveallMITengineeringstudentshands‐onvisceralexperienceinproject‐based

learningandresults‐orientedleadershipaspartoftheirnormalacademicexperience;

• topreparemany(‘GordonEngineers’)MITengineeringstudentstobemoreeffective

contributorstoengineeringinvention,innovationandimplementationeffortsthrough

advancedcoursesandmultidisciplinaryprojects;

• afocusedprogramtoeducateandprepareafew(‘GordonEngineeringLeaders’)MIT

engineeringstudentstobefutureleadersofengineeringinvention,innovationand

implementationefforts.

23

Twoclearthemesemergewithintheprogram:(i)providingarangeofopportunitiesto

contextualiseandapplythestudents’developingleadershipskills,and(ii)ensuringthatthe

participantstakeanactiveroleinthedesignanddirectionoftheoverallprogram.Thecoreteam

supportinganddeliveringtheGordon‐MITELPactivitiesincludes5full‐timestaff,withassociated

administrativesupport.Theprogramisdirectedbytwoseniorengineeringprofessorswithinthe

SchoolofEngineeringandisalsosupportedbyanumberofhigh‐leveladvisoryboards,witha

strongfocusonUS‐industrypartnerships.

ThetwokeycomponentsoftheGordon‐MITELP–onefocusedonMITengineering

undergraduatesandonefocusedonenhancingengineeringleadershipeducationacrosstheUS–

areeachdiscussedinturninthefollowingtwosections.

5.3.2 Structureofeducationaloffering

TheMIT‐basededucationalactivitiesoftheprogramcomprisethreeelements:(i)curricular

enhancementsavailabletoallMITundergraduateengineers,(ii)co‐andextra‐curricularactivities

offeredtoaannualcohortofapproximately200‘GordonEngineers’,and(iii)anintensive,mainly

co‐curricularprogramforasmaller,highlyselectivegroupof‘GordonEngineeringLeaders’

(approximately20‐30studentsperclassyear).Developmentoftheprogram’seducational

materialstartedinthesummerof2008,andthemajorityofearlyworkhasbeenfocusedonthe

‘GordonEngineeringLeaders’track.

Thefirstthreadoftheprograms’educationalofferingaimstoprovideleadershipdevelopment

opportunitiestoallMITundergraduateengineers.Althoughthisworkisstillatanearlystage,

plannedactivitiesincludethedevelopmentoffourone‐hourleadershipmodulestobeledbythe

undergraduateprogramparticipants.

Applicationstothetwoselectivetracksoftheprogram(theGordonEngineersandtheGordon

EngineeringLeaders)willbeconsideredduringthesophomoreyear,oncethestudenthas

successfullycompletedtheUndergraduatePracticeOpportunitiesProgram(UPOP).Bothtracks

willoperateinthestudents’JuniorandSenioryearsandaimtoprovideaframeworkthat

continuouslyexposesthemtocyclicphasesoftheory,applicationandreflectionintheir

leadershipdevelopment.Reflectingthiscycle,bothtrackscombineregularleadershipclasses,

project‐basedexperiencesforleadershipapplicationandsignificantmentoringandguidance.

24

The‘GordonEngineer’(GE)trackiscurrentlyinthedesignphase.Studentsacceptedintothis

trackwillparticipateinleadershipcoursesanda‘realisticscaleproject’(suchasFormulaSAEor

‘design‐build‐fly’),beofferedopportunitiestocompleteandreflectonapersonalleadershipplan

andbeprovidedwithmentoredsupportfromprogramstaffandindustrypartners.

The‘GordonEngineeringLeaders’(GELs)verymuchlieattheheartoftheGordon‐MITELP,and

thesecondcohortofGELswilljointheprograminSeptember2009.Thishighly‐selective

programtrackprovidesamoreintensiveandchallengingexperiencetothatplannedforthe

GordonEngineers.TheGELtrackiscenteredaroundaweeklyEngineeringLeadershipLab,which

providesstudentswith‘real‐lifeexperientialscenarios’.Thisactivityisdesignedanddeliveredby

theGELparticipantswithastrongfocusontheseniorstudentsguidingthejuniors.Aroundthis

coreEngineeringLeadershipLab,thethreephasesoftheory,applicationandreflectionare

offeredtotheparticipantsthroughthefollowingmeans:

• Theory:GELsareexposedtoframeworks,modelsandcasestudiesinengineering

leadershipthroughcurricularandco‐curricularmodules.Inall,studentsmustselectfour

‘shortsubjects’andone‘advancedsubject’,allavailablethroughtheprogram.

• Application:GELsareprovidedwithleadershippracticeopportunitiesthroughouttheir

twoyearsintheGordon‐MITELP,andareexpectedtoremaininvolvedwiththeprogram

insomecapacitybeyondtheirgraduationfromMIT.Duringtheiractivetimeinthe

program,theyarerequiredtocompletetwo‘realisticscaleprojects’andparticipateina

summerindustryinternship.GELsalsohavea‘service’responsibilitywithintheGordon‐

MITELP,whichmayincludeassistingwiththeoperation,designanddeliveryofprogram,

oractingasa‘leadershipcoach’ormentortomorejuniorstudents.

• Reflection:Allparticipantscompleteapersonaldevelopmentplanandareprovidedwith

opportunitiesforevaluationandreflectionontheirownleadershipdevelopmentwith

programstaff,industryleadersandmentors.

25

5.3.3 Disseminationandoutreach

Thesecondoverarchingprogramaimisto‘increasethefocusofnationalengineeringeducation

onthedevelopmentofleadersofproduct,processandsystemdevelopment’.Earlyworkis

alreadyunderwayinthisarea,andoverallgoalsinclude:

• developmentofaUS‐basedcommunityofinstitutionsengagedwithengineering

leadershipeducation,

• developmentofanengineeringleadershipeducationalmodelthatcanbereplicatedin

engineeringschoolsacrossthecountry,withsupportingresourcesandworkshops,and

• hostingofanannualBernardM.Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipConferenceto

highlightbestpracticeinthefield.

5.4 Casestudy4:LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironment–MonashUniversity

5.4.1 Programoverview

LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironmentaco‐curricularprogramthatoperatesforthreeyears

oftheundergraduateengineeringdegreeatMonashUniversity.Thisstructuredleadership

programwasestablishedbytheFacultyofEngineeringin2006(andcommencedinFebruary

2007),adecisionwhichwasdrivenbytwokeyfactors:(i)callsfromindustryforimproved

leadershipskillsandattitudesinengineeringgraduates,and(ii)adesiretoattracttopperforming

prospectiveengineeringstudentstotheuniversity.

Theprogramexplicitlytargets‘elite’students,withtwoentrymechanisms:

1. EachyeartheFacultyofEngineeringoffers50to60EngineeringExcellenceAwardsof

$6000(AUS)p.a.forentrystudentswhoachievedthehighestscoresintheirYear12

examinationresults.Todatethishasmeantcutoffscoresof98.3,98.4and99.4forthe

threeentrycohorts.AllAwardholdersareinvitedtoentertheLeadershipina

TechnologicalEnvironmentprogram.

2. Anadditional10‐15placesarealsoallocatedduringthefirstyearofstudyfornon‐Award

holders.Applicantsmustdemonstratemotivationandprovenleadershipabilities

determinedthroughanapplicationandinterviewprocess.

26

Corestaffinglevelsontheprogramareverysmall‐programdesignandmanagementisdrivenby

theAssociateDeanforTeaching,withaSpecialProjectsOfficerprovingfull‐timedevelopment

andadministrativeassistance.Muchofthecontentdeliveryisout‐sourcedtoexternalspeakers.

Theprogramcostsaround$150k(AUS)p.a.tooperate.Itiscurrentlywhollyfundedthroughthe

FacultyofEngineering,althoughexternalsupportisnowbeingactivelysought.

5.4.2 Programstructureandfocus

Theprogramcomprisesarangeofdifferentactivities,includingresidentialworkshops,modules,

work‐shadowingandnetworking,asoutlinedbelow.

1. ‘Residentials’.Atthestartofeachacademicyear,allprogramparticipantsattendan

intensive2‐3dayresidentialworkshop.Thisexperienceisdesignedtobuildthe

communitybond,shapethestudents’leadershipawarenessandpreparethemforthe

comingyear’sactivities.Forexample,duringthefirstyear‘residential’,studentsspend

onedayexaminingtheirpersonalitytype(usingaMyersBriggsprofile)andexploringhow

thisimpactstheirleadershipapproach.

2. Modules:Atotalofnineshortmodulesareprovidedoverthethreeyears,intopicssuch

as‘Whatisleadership?’,‘Ethics‘and‘ChangeManagement’.Eachmoduleistypically

structuredinthreeparts:(i)apresentationonthemodulethemefromanexpertinthe

field,(ii)relatedteamactivities/projects,and(iii)afinaldiscussionandreflectionexercise

withanindustrypanel.

3. Industryexperience:Thisexperienceincludesahalf‐dayindustryshadowinginthefirst

yearoftheprogramandaone‐weekworkexperienceduringthesecondyear.Regular

seminarsandpresentationarealsogivenbyindustry.Theseactivitieshavealreadyledto

somestudentsobtainingvacationworkexperienceatanearlierstagethanmost

employerswouldoffer.

4. Networking:Participantsareprovidedwithanumberofnetworkingopportunities,

includinganannualdinnerattendedbyseniorrepresentativesfromindustryand

academia.

27

Althoughtherearenopublicationsavailablerelatingtothisprogram,apaperiscurrentlyin

planningwhichdescribestheunexpectedoutcomesofthestudents’personalityprofiling

exercise.OnepointtonotefromtheprofilingisthatthefullrangeMyersBriggstypeswere

foundintheprogramcohort,withconcentrationsingroupsthatwouldnotnormallybeexpected

tobefoundinengineeringstudents.

28

6 Concludingcomments

Thereportpresentsthefindingsofasnap‐shotreviewofbestinternationalpracticein

engineeringleadershipeducation.Arangeofinterestingprogramshavebeenidentifiedfrom

acrosstheworld.

Thestudyrevealssignificantinternationaldifferencesbothinattitudesandapproachto

engineeringleadershipeducation.Inthisregard,acleardistinctionisapparentbetweentheUS

andtherestoftheworld.Itisclearthatthehubofactivityin‘explicit’engineeringleadership

educationislikelytoremainintheUS,atleastforthenext5‐10years.

Thestudyrevealsadearthofexpertiseandresourcescurrentlyavailabletoengineeringschools

wishingtoestablishnewprogramsofengineeringleadershipeducation.Themajorityof

programscurrentlyinoperationarerelativelynew(lessthan5yearsoldsincetheirinception)

andthereforearenotinapositiontoprovidethecommunitywithprovenmodelsofsuccessor

long‐termlongitudinaldataontheimpactoftheireducationalapproach.Thedifficultlyin

identifyingandsecuringfacultyandsupportstafftodesignanddelivertheprogramactivitiesis

seenasaparticularchallengebyprogramleaders.

Acrosstheworld,thereisaverystrong‘globalandcross‐cultural’themeevidentinprogramsof

engineeringleadershipeducation.Understandinghowtooperateeffectivelywithincomplex

internationalandcross‐culturalenvironmentsisclearlyseenasanimportantelementof

successfulengineeringleadershipinthefuture,sothisthemeislikelytobecomeanever‐

strongerfocus.

Themajorityofengineeringleadershipeducationprogramsidentifiedinthestudyaremanaged

attheschool(ratherthandepartmental)levelbyarelativelyseniorfacultymemberwithasmall

projectteam,operatingpredominantlyoutsideofthecurriculum.Thesizeandpositionofsuch

programsallowsforhighlevelsofflexibilitytodevelopneweducationalapproachesto

engineeringleadershipeducation.Lookingtothefuture,assuchmodelsareproven,

opportunitiesexisttoembedsuccessfulapproacheswithinthecurriculum.

Themoststrikingfindingofthereviewisthedearthofresourcesorformalnetworkscurrently

availableinengineeringleadershipeducation.Giventheemphasisthatmanyinternational

29

engineeringeducationprogramsplaceon‘educatingfutureleaders’intheirpromotional

materialthisrepresentsakeygaptobefilled.Inrecentyears,theprofileandknowledge‐basefor

therelatedfieldsof‘globalengineeringeducation’and‘entrepreneurshipengineeringeducation’

havegrownconsiderably.Itisclearfromthestudythatpartnershipsacrossandbetweenthese

communitieswillbeanimportantfactorinthefuturedevelopmentofexcellenceinengineering

leadershipeducation.

30

AppendixA. Individualsinterviewed/consulted

A.1. NorthAmerica

KrishnaAthreya Director,EngineeringLeadershipProgram,IowaStateUniversity

LoriBreslow Director,TeachingandLearningLaboratory,MIT

TomByers FacultyDirector,StanfordTechnologyVenturesProgram,StanfordUniversity

EdCrawley Co‐Director,Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT

MonicaCox DepartmentofEngineeringEducationandDirector,‘LeadershipPolicyandChange’graduatecourse,PurdueUniversity

LesiaCrumton‐Young

FormerDirector,CenterforEngineeringLeadershipandLearning,UniversityofCentralFlorida,currentlyonsecondmentattheCenterfortheAdvancementofScholarshiponEngineeringEducation,NationalAcademyofEngineering

MelanieD’Evelyn ProjectDirector,NationalConsortiumforCharacter‐BasedLeadership,CenterfortheStudyofthePresidencyandCongress

DanDolan ProfessorofMechanicalEngineeringandCo‐Director,CAMP,SouthDakotaSchoolofMinesandTechnology

GaryDowney ProfessorofScienceandTechnologyStudiesandCourseDirector,EngineeringCultures,VirginiaTech

CliveDym FletcherJonesProfessorofEngineeringDesign,HarveyMuddCollege

NormanForenberry Director,CenterfortheAdvancementofScholarshiponEngineeringEducation,NationalAcademyofEngineering

PeterGray DirectorofAcademicAssessment,UnitedStatesNavalAcademy

KamyarHaghigi Head,DepartmentofEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity

DanHastings DeanforUndergraduateEducation,MIT

DanHirleman HeadofMechanicalEngineeringandDirector,GEARE,PurdueUniversity

BethHolloway Director,WomenandEngineeringProgramandDirector,‘WomenandLeadership’course,PurdueUniversity

DonnieHorner ProfessorofLeadershipEducation,DepartmentofLeadership,EthicsandLaw,UnitedStatesNavalAcademy

PKImbrie DepartmentofEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity

BrentJesiek DepartmentofEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity

AmyJoines StudentDirector,EngineeringLeadershipProgram,IowaStateUniversity

31

AmeryKuhl StudentLeader,CAMP,SouthDakotaSchoolofMinesandTechnology

TomLitzinger Director,LeonhardCenterfortheEnhancementofEngineeringEducation,PennStateUniversity

BillLucas DirectorofResearch,Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT

SusannLuperfoy ExecutiveDirector,UndergraduatePracticeOpportunitiesProgram,MIT

CherylMatherly AssociateDeanforGlobalEducationandDirector,INNOVATE,UniversityofTulsa

PamelaMcCauley‐Bush

ActingDirector,CenterforEngineeringLeadershipandLearning,UniversityofCentralFlorida

LindaMcCloskey Director,ArcherCenterforStudentLeadershipDevelopment,RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute

LeoMcGonagle ExecutiveDirector,Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT

RickMiller PresidentandProfessor,FranklinW.OlinCollegeofEngineering

RabiMohtar Director,GlobalEngineeringProgram,PurdueUniversity

GeoffreyOrsak Dean,BobbyB.LyleSchoolofEngineering,SouthernMethodistUniversity

DavidRadcliffe AssociateHead,DepartmentOfEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity

TeriReed‐Rhoads AssistantDeanofEngineeringforUndergraduateEducation,AssociateProfessorofEngineeringEducation,PurdueUniversity

DougReeve Chair,DepartmentofChemicalEngineeringandAppliedChemistryandCo‐Leader,LeadersofTomorrow,UniversityofToronto

ChellRoberts ChairofEngineering,ArizonaStateUniversity

JoelSchindall Co‐Director,Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT

RickSchuhmann Director,EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentProgram,PennStateUniversity

SheriSheppard AssociateViceProvostforGraduateEducation,ProfessorofMechanicalEngineering,StanfordUniversity

KarlSmith ProfessorofCooperativeLearninginEngineeringEducation,PurdueandMinnesotaUniversities

DianeSoderholm EducationDirector,Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram,MIT

A.2. Europe

AlisonAhearnLecturerinEducationalDevelopmentandCoordinator,Constructionarium,FacultyofEngineering,ImperialCollege

32

JoanAlabartDepartmentd’EnginyeriaQuímica,UniversitatRoviraiVirgiliandDirector,ProjectManagementinPractice

CarolArlettCentreManager,HigherEducationAcademyEngineeringSubjectCentre,LoughboroughUniversity

PeterBullen Director,BlendedLearningUnit,UniversityofHertfordshire

BobDitchfieldDirector,EducationAffairsandDiversity,TheRoyalAcademyofEngineering

ErikdeGraaff FacultyofTechnology,UniversityofDelft

JohnDickens

Director,HigherEducationAcademyEngineeringSubjectCentreandEngineeringCentreforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning,AssociateDean(Teaching)ofEngineering,UniversityofLoughborough

KristinaEdström KTHLearningLab,KTH

MarcoEisenberg ProgramDirector,GlobalEngineeringTeams,TechnischeUniversitätBerlin

MarkEndeanEngineeringProgrammeDirector,FacultyofMathematics,ComputingandTechnology,TheOpenUniversity

MikeGregoryHeadoftheManufacturingandManagementDivisionoftheUniversityEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofCambridge

AlisonHalstead Pro‐Vice‐Chancellor,LearningandTeachingInnovation,AstonUniversity

MichaelHush FacultyofTechnology,TheOpenUniversity

AnetteKolmosProfessorinEngineeringEducationandPBLandChairholder,UNESCOChairinProblemBasedLearninginEngineeringEducation,AalborgUniversity

JuliaKingViceChancellor,AstonUniversityandChair,RoyalAcademyofEngineering‘Engineersofthe21stCentury’Program

CarolineLowreyAssistantManager,EngineeringCentreforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning,LoughboroughUniversity

MarkRussell DeputyDirector,BlendedLearningUnit,UniversityofHertfordshire

GillianSaundersChairofAerospaceStructure,FacultyofAerospaceEngineering,DelftUniversityofTechnology

DaveTwiggCivilandBuildingEngineeringandDirector,‘LeadershipandTeamwork’module,UniversityofLoughborough

A.3. Restoftheworld

LizzieBrownDirectorofEducation,TrainingandResearch,EngineersWithoutBordersAustralia

33

IanCameronSeniorFellow,AustralianLearning&TeachingCouncilandProfessor,ChemicalEngineering,UniversityofQueensland

DuncanCampbellAlternateHeadofSchool,SchoolofEngineeringSystems,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology

GaryCodnerAssociateDean(Teaching)andDirector,LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironment,FacultyofEngineering,MonashUniversity

CarolineCrosthwaite

DirectorofStudiesandAssociateDean,FacultyofEngineering,PhysicalSciences&Architecture,UniversityofQueensland

DavidDowling

ProfessorofEngineeringEducation,Coordinator,MasterofEngineeringPracticeprogram,FacultyofEngineeringandSurveying,UniversityofSouthernQueensland

LizGodfreyFacultyofEngineering,UniversityofAucklandandPresident,AustralasianAssociationforEngineeringEducation

RogerHadgraft Director,EngineeringLearningUnit,MelbourneSchoolofEngineering

DougHargreavesHeadofSchool,SchoolofEngineeringSystems,QueenslandUniversityofTechnologyandDeputyPresidentofEngineersAustralia

AshrafKassimViceDean(UndergraduateStudies),FacultyofEngineering,NationalUniversityofSingapore

NickNoakesDirector,CenterforEnhancedLearningandTeaching,HongKongUniversityofScience&Technology

AldoOmetto DepartamentodeEngenhariadeProdução,UniversidadedeSãoPaulo

KhairiyahYusofDeputyDirector,CentreforTeaching&Learning,UniversitiTeknologiMalaysia

34

AppendixB. Summarytableofselectedprograms

Providedoverleafisatablesummarisingsomeofthekeyfeaturesofeightselectedprogramsof

engineeringleadershipeducation.Theprogramsincludedinthetableare:

• EngineeringLeadershipProgram18,IowaStateUniversity(IowaState)

• TeamworkandLeadershipModule7,LoughboroughUniversity(L'borough)

• Gordon‐MITEngineeringLeadershipProgram19,MIT(MIT)

• LeadershipinaTechnologicalEnvironment25,MonashUniveristy(Monash)

• EngineeringLeadershipDevelopmentMinor15,PennStateUniversity(PennState)

• LeadersofTomorrow23,UniversityofToronto,(Toronto)

• GlobalEngineeringTeams12,TechnischeUniversitätBerlin(TUBerlin)

• Constructionarium33,UKUniversityandIndustryPartnership(UKPart.)

Thetableprovidesanoverviewofthemostsignificantactivitiesorthemeswithineachprogram,

presentedwithininsixmainareas:

1. Centralprogramthemes:thekeytheme/saroundwhichtheactivityiscentredandwhich

isembeddedthroughouttheprogram.Forexample,thoseprogramsidentifiedwitha

‘global/cross‐cultural’thememayinvolvestudentsspendingaportionoftheirtime

overseas,cross‐nationalprojectteamswithoverseaspartnersorasignificantfocuson

developingstudents’cross‐culturalunderstanding.

2. Contentandeducationalapproach:theoveralleducationalapproach,structureand

contentoftheprogram.Forexample,thissectionwillidentifywhethertheprogram

includesan‘intensive‘transformational’experience’wherestudentsarefullyimmersed

inadeliberatelychallengingactivityoveradefinedperiodorwhethertheprogramholds

aregular‘leadershipseminar/workshop’designedtounitethecohortaroundthecentral

programideas.

35

3. Leadershippracticeopportunities:theopportunitiesprovidedforstudentstoapplyand

honetheirleadershipskills.Thissectionidentifiesthepracticalopportunitiesofferedfor

‘leadershippractice’,suchas‘campus‐basedhands‐onprojects’(suchasFormulaSAE),

intensive‘residentialoff‐campusretreats’oropportunitiesfor‘mentoringorcoachingof

morejuniorstudents’.

4. Reflection,guidanceandassessment:themechanismsusedtoencouragestudentsto

reflectontheirleadershipdevelopment,theguidanceofferedandthestudent

assessmentprocessesused.Forexample,thissectionwillidentifywhetherprograms

facilitatestudentstodevelop‘reflectivejournals’,whether‘peer‐evaluation’isemployed

orwhethertheprogram/institutionhavedeveloped‘associatedassessmenttools’

specificallytailoredforengineeringleadershipandusedwithintheprogram.

5. Structureandorganisation:howtheoverallprogramisstructuredandorganised.For

example,thissectionwillidentifywhetherthereisa‘competitiveselectionprocess’for

admittancetotheprogram,whethertheprogramhasdevelopedany‘associated

researchprojects’inengineeringleadership,whethertheprogramisofferedasa

‘curricular’and/or‘co‐curricular’activityorwhetherthereisafocuson‘disseminationof

theprogram’soutcomes’outsidetheinstitution.

6. Governance:howtheoverallprogramisadministered.Thissectioncoversaspectssuch

aswhethertheprogramispredominantly‘student‐ledinitsdesignanddirection’or

whether‘externalexpertgroups’areengagedtoprovideguidanceandadvicetothe

programdevelopmentteam.

Itshouldbenotedthatmostprogramswilltouchonalmosteverycriterionpresentedinthetable

insomeform.However,onlythoseaspectsthatrepresentasignificantfocusoftheprograms’

activitiesarerepresentedoverleaf.

36

Sig

nifica

nt p

rogra

m elem

ents

Iow

a S

tate

L'b

oro

ugh

MIT

Mon

ash

Pen

n S

tate

Toro

nto

TU

Berlin

UK

-Part.

Cen

tral p

rogra

m th

emes

Glo

bal/cro

ss-cultu

ral contex

t!

!!

Busin

ess/entrep

reneu

rship

contex

t!

! C

ontrib

utio

n to

society

or en

viro

nm

ent

!!

!!

! P

rofessio

nal p

ractice and p

artnersh

ips

!!

!!

!C

onten

t and ed

uca

tional a

ppro

ach

Articu

lated learn

ing o

utco

mes

!!

!!

!!

! U

nitin

g 'lead

ership

semin

ar/work

shop'

!!

!!

'Case-stu

dy' led

instru

ction

! L

eadersh

ip/b

usin

ess 'theo

ry'

!!

!!

! E

ngin

eering-d

esign fo

cused

!!

Pro

ject-based

appro

ach!

!!

!!

!!

! P

ersonality

pro

filing ex

ercises!

!!

! In

tensiv

e 'transfo

rmatio

nal' ex

perien

ces!

!!

Lea

dersh

ip P

ractice O

pportu

nities

Cam

pus-b

ased h

ands-o

n p

rojects

!!

!!

!!

Off cam

pus 'real-w

orld

' experien

ces!

!!

Resid

ential o

ff-campus 'cam

p' o

r 'retreat'!

!!

!!

Intern

ational ex

perien

ces!

! P

eer men

torin

g o

r 'coach

ing' o

f junio

r studen

ts!

!R

eflection, g

uid

ance a

nd a

ssessmen

t

Men

torin

g (b

y facu

lty, industry

etc.)!

!!

!!

! P

ersonal lead

ership

dev

elopm

ent p

lan!

! R

eflective jo

urn

als/portfo

lios

!!

!!

Self-ev

aluatio

n!

!!

! P

eer-evalu

ation

!!

!!

Novel (in

-house d

evelo

ped

) assessmen

t tools

!!

!!

Stru

cture a

nd o

rganisa

tion

Pro

gram

indiv

idually

-tailored

for each

studen

t!

!!

Curricu

lar elemen

ts!

!!

!!

! C

o-cu

rricular elem

ents

!!

!!

Asso

ciated research

pro

jects!

!!

Com

petitiv

e applicatio

n an

d selectio

n p

rocess

!!

!!

Asso

ciated stu

den

t scholarsh

ip p

rogram

!!

! E

xtern

al pro

gram

of d

issemin

ation an

d o

utreach

!!

Pro

gram

in o

peratio

n fo

r over fiv

e years

!!

!!

!G

overn

ance

Stu

den

t-led d

esign, d

elivery

and d

irection

!!

! H

oused

with

in E

ngin

eering S

chool/s

!!

!!

!!

!!

Extern

al adviso

ry g

roups

!!