COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT
OF SCALED GLOBAL
ENGINEERING INITIATIVES
Diane DeTurris, Jane Lehr, Jim Widmann, Lily
Hsu Laiho, Fred DePiero, Zoë Wood, Alana
Snelling
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA
ASEE International Forum
14 June 2014
What is Global Competency for
Engineers?
• Knowledge: geographic, geopolitical, historical, cultural,
social, economic, etc.
• Including analysis of one’s own country and culture of origin
• Skills: Written and oral communication (for multiple
audiences and stakeholders), multi-lingualism, teamwork,
self-reflexivity, leadership, critical thinking, project
management, ability to cope with unfamiliarity and
difference and to understand the ways in which these
impact behaviors and practices and then modify social
and technical practices to work effectively in multiple
national contexts, etc.
• Attitudes: Openness, willingness to participate in and
learn from other cultures, anti-ethnocentricism, etc.
What is Global Competency for
Engineers?
• Gary Downey et al (2006), The Globally Competent
Engineer: Working Effectively with People Who Define
Problems Differently. Journal of Engineering Education,
95(2): 1-17.
• … students will acquire the knowledge, ability, and
predispositions to work effectively with people who define
problems differently than they do.
ABET EC 2000 Criteria 3 – Student Outcomes
approved in 1996; revised 2004
• (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process
to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as
economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health
and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
• (f) an understanding of professional and ethical
responsibility
• (h) the broad education necessary to understand the
impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal
context
• (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues
Methodologies for Producing Globally
Competent Engineers in the U.S.
• University course work (language, culture, histories of
cross-cultural or non-U.S. technology development, etc.)
• Study Abroad
• Research, Work or Service Experiences Abroad
• Working on International Teams
• When U.S. participants travel to another country
• When U.S.-based participants do not travel to another country
• Face-to-face
• Electronically-mediated
• Working on U.S.-based Teams with an Appropriate
Technology (International) focus
• Other
Example: Purdue Global Engineering Program
https://engineering.purdue.edu/GEP/
• VISION: “... Leadership through global impact ...”
• The Purdue Global Engineering Program will be an integrated, model program
for engineering schools across the world, offering the tools and opportunities
for global engineering discovery, education of engineers who exhibit scientific
initiative and cultural sensitivity as they step into roles of international
leadership, engaging and positively impacting communities both at home and
abroad.
• MISSION: “... Global Leadership in Engagement, Learning, Discovery
...”
• The GEP mission includes the three Purdue mission areas as follows:
• Engagement: Improve the competence and livelihood of the engineering, academic
and business communities in Indiana, the US and the world, through building global
partnerships.
• Discovery: Strengthen the College of Engineering's signature as a global engineering
hub for strategic research in targeted geographic areas to meet the global engineering
grand challenges of the 21st century and beyond.
• Learning: Provide opportunities to Engineering students of Purdue through global
educational initiatives that empower them to become leaders of engineering discovery,
engagement and learning.
Example: Purdue Global Engineering Program
https://engineering.purdue.edu/GEP/
• The Global Engineering Learning Portfolio is made up of
opportunities in the following areas:
• Study Abroad
• Global Service Learning
• Global Design Teams
• International EPICS (Engineering Projects in Community Service)
• Engineers Without Borders / Engineers for a Sustainable World
• Work Abroad
• Global Research
• Global Awareness at Home
• Global Scholarships
Example: Engineers Without Borders
Cal Poly Examples
• Projects
• Individual or Group Course Projects
• Individual or Group Senior Projects
• Student Groups / Programs
• Engineers Without Borders
• International Computer Engineering Experience (ICEX) Program
• Structural Engineers for Humanity (formerly Structural Engineers for Haiti)
• Student & Faculty Exchanges
• Coursework
• Mandatory
• US Cultural Pluralism course
• Diversity Learning Objectives (GE and non-GE)
• Voluntary
• Appropriate Technology for the World’s People:
• Development | Design
• Global Engineering: Gender, Race, Class, Nation
• Language
Ongoing Challenges in Producing
Globally Competent Engineers
Ongoing Challenges in Producing
Globally Competent Engineers
• Definition
• Assessment
• Program Educational Objectives
• Student Learning Outcomes
• Resources
• To support program development and participation
• To conduct assessment that is efficient, effective, sufficient, and
consistent
• Scale
• Funding
• Voluntary vs. involuntary programs
• Faculty expertise, prioritization, comfort
• University structures to support (or not support) implementation
mechanisms such as team-teaching, international travel, etc.
Our Project Today
• Assessment Criteria for Global Competency for Cal Poly
• Program Educational Objectives (institutional-level)
• Student Learning Outcomes
Assessing Program Educational
Objectives
Assessing Program Educational
Objectives
• Reviewed 48 programs in 36 institutions (235 PEOs total)
• Referred to “global,” “international,” or “world” less than 7% of the
time
• Examples
• globalized professional environment
• contribute to the state, nation, or global community
• respond to global changes
• function in a global environment
• remain globally competitive
• global involvement and awareness
• prepared for global issues
• engagement locally and globally
• aware of impact nationally and globally
• success in international activities
• Referred to “culture” or “cultural” 0% of the time
Assessing Student Learning Outcomes
• This is (even more) complicated …
Assessing Student Learning Outcomes
• Jesiek, Brent K., Yi Shen, and Yating Haller. (2012). Cross-
Cultural Competence: A Comparative Assessment of
Engineering Students. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 28(1): 144-155.
• “cross-cultural competence is a key facet of global competency for
engineers”
• Propose using the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale-
Short form (MGUDS-S)
• 15-item instrument that measures Universality-Diversity Orientation:
“an attitude of awareness and acceptance of both similarities and
differences that exist among people”
• Original Sources:
• Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., et al.
(1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville-Guzman
Universality-Diversity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46: 291–307.
• Fuertes, J. N., Miville, M. L., Mohr, J. J., Sedlacek, W. E., & Gretchen, D. (2000).
Factor structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33: 157–169.
Miville-Guzman Universality Diversity
Scale-Short form (MGUDS-S)
• Miville-Guzman Universality Diversity Scale-Short form
(MGUDS-S)
• 15-item instrument that measures Universality-Diversity Orientation
(UDO): “an attitude of awareness and acceptance of both
similarities and differences that exist among people”
• UDO Axes
• Diversity of Contact (behavioral)
• Students' interest in participating in diverse social and cultural activities
• Relativistic appreciation of oneself and others (cognitive)
• The extent to which students value the impact of diversity on selfunderstanding and personal growth
• Degree of emotional comfort with differences (affective)
• Students’ degree of comfort with diverse individuals (reverse scored)
Miville-Guzman Universality Diversity
Scale-Short form (MGUDS-S)
• Diversity of Contact
1.
I would like to join an organization that emphasizes getting to know people from different
countries
2.
I would like to go to dances that feature music from other countries
3.
I often listen to music of other countries
4.
I am interested in learning about the many cultures that have existed in this world
5.
I attend events where I might get to know people from different racial backgrounds
• Relativistic Appreciation
6.
Persons with disabilities can teach me things I could not learn elsewhere
7.
I can best understand someone after I get to know how he/she is both similar to and different
from me
8.
Knowing how a person differs from me greatly enhances our friendship
9.
In getting to know someone, I like knowing both how he/she is different from me and is
similar to me
10.
Knowing about the different experiences of other people helps me understand my own
problems better
• Comfort with Differences (reverse-scored)
10.
Getting to know someone of another race is generally an uncomfortable experience for me
11.
I am only at ease with people of my own race
12.
It's really hard for me to feel close to a person from another race
13.
It is very important that a friend agrees with me on most issues
14.
I often feel irritated by persons of a different race
Assessing Student Learning Outcomes
• Jesiek, Brent K., Yi Shen, and Yating Haller. (2012).
Cross-Cultural Competence: A Comparative Assessment
of Engineering Students. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 28(1): 144-155.
• Comparison of students who opt into global engineering programs
(primarily at Purdue University) as compared to the cross-cultural
competence of first-year engineering students also at Purdue
University
• “MGUDS-S is an appropriate instrument for assessing the crosscultural competence of engineering students, especially in the
context of global engineering programs”
• “MGUDS-S also has the advantage of being relatively easy and
quick to administer,” along with being “freely available for use its
unmodified form”
Assessing Student Learning Outcomes
• Is the MGUDS-S a tool we wish to recommend/adopt at Cal
Poly for assessing global competency?
• Is the MGUDS-S a tool we wish to recommend/adopt at Cal
Poly for assessing the the differential impacts of individual
global competency mechanisms/programs/experiences as well
as cumulative experiences?
• That is, can we distinguish, for example, between the impact of a
course-based experience vs. participation in Engineers Without
Borders or another international program? Or between the impact of a
1-week module vs. a 10-week course?
• Other questions
• What are minimum/acceptable global competency goals/standards for
Cal Poly graduates?
• What mechanisms are necessary/sufficient to achieve these
minimum/acceptable global competency goals/standards?
Pilot Implementation of MGUDS-S
• Populations of Students
• 36 students voluntarily active with Engineers Without Borders
• 116 senior project students in courses that included some global
learning opportunities (not active with EWB)
• A small number of students participated on international teams and/or
completed senior projects with an international focus
• All students: 4-6 hours of formal cross-cultural training in 2nd and/or 3rd
quarter
• 32 students in a required AERO course (not active with EWB)
Results: Universality-Diversity Orientation
EWB (n=36)
Senior Project
(n=116)
AERO (n=32)
Diversity of Contact
4.79
4.20
4.09
Relativistic
Appreciation
5.05
4.58
4.63
Comfort with
Differences
5.15
5.00
4.84
Overall UDO
5.00
4.59
4.52
1=lowest; 6= highest
Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Disagree a Little Bit (3)
Agree a Little Bit (4) Agree (5)
Strongly Agree (6)
Implications
• Students who voluntarily participated in EWB at Cal Poly
scored higher on each axis of the UDO
• Supports Jesiek, Shen and Haller’s conclusion that the
MGUDS-S is an efficient, effective, sufficient, and
consistent instrument for assessing global competency
Next Steps at Cal Poly
• More systemic integration of MGUDS-S in global competency
assessment efforts
• Identification of minimum/acceptable scores on this scale
• Longitudinal and statistical analysis of the individual and
cumulative impact of globally-focused student experiences on
MGUDS-S score
• More detailed identification and comparative analysis of global
competency opportunities/initiatives at Cal Poly
• Identification of additional assessment mechanisms that focus
on skills/application and knowledge, in addition to attitudes
Next Steps at Cal Poly
• More systemic integration of MGUDS-S in global competency
assessment efforts
• Longitudinal and statistical analysis of the individual and
cumulative impact of globally-focused student experiences on
MGUDS-S score, including:
• Implementation of pre-, post-assessments
• Extension of analysis beyond EWB vs. Non-EWB
• Identification of the impact of any hidden or secret curriculum that
deprioritizes global competence
• More detailed identification and comparative analysis of global
competency opportunities/initiatives at Cal Poly
• Identification of additional assessment mechanisms that focus
on skills/application and knowledge, in addition to attitudes
Next Steps at Cal Poly
• More systemic integration of MGUDS-S in global competency
assessment efforts
• Longitudinal and statistical analysis of the individual and
cumulative impact of globally-focused student experiences on
MGUDS-S score
• More detailed identification and comparative analysis of global
competency opportunities/initiatives at Cal Poly
• Rates of and reasons for student/faculty participation (& barriers)
• Exploration of the ways in which U.S.-focused programs focused on
diversity, inclusivity, and/or equity may prepare/not prepare globally
competent engineers
• Identification of additional assessment mechanisms that focus
on skills/application and knowledge, in addition to attitudes
Next Steps at Cal Poly
• More systemic integration of MGUDS-S in global competency
assessment efforts
• Longitudinal and statistical analysis of the individual and
cumulative impact of globally-focused student experiences on
MGUDS-S score
• More detailed identification and comparative analysis of global
competency opportunities/initiatives at Cal Poly
• Identification of additional assessment mechanisms that focus
on skills/application and knowledge, in addition to attitudes
Extra Slides
1.10—Defining Culture: List of characteristics of
culture (Peace Corps, Culture Matters, p. 233/241)
1. culture is collective, shared by a group
2. culture is learned
3. it has to do with values, beliefs, assumptions, attitudes,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
and feelings
it involves customs and traditions
it influences or guides behavior
it is transmitted from generation to generation
it is unconscious or implicit
it is a response/adaptation to reality
Theorizing Culture
• “ The central focus here is on the relationship
between culture in the abstract—the underlying
values and assumptions of a society—and culture in
the flesh—the specific behaviors that derive from
those values. It is important to understand that what
people do and say in a particular culture, whether it be
yours or that of your host country, are not arbitrary and
spontaneous, but are consistent with what people in that
culture value and believe in. By knowing people’s
values and beliefs, you can come to expect and
predict their behavior.”
• Culture Matters: The Peace Corps Cross-Cultural Workbook, p.
6/14
Culture
• “ Regarding culture, like most cultural anthropologists I do not restrict the
scope of the world to the intangible areas of ideas, religion, arts,
literature, language, films, oral traditions, and, in short, the intellectual life
of people. Rather, the concept of culture in an anthropological sense
has more to do with the total knowledge and way of life of a group
of people; both conscious and unconscious, implicit and explicit. It
is everything that a group of people has learned, and therefore it is best
defined in contrast not to society but instead to nature, to a people’s
physical environment … and to their biological inheritance …
• Thus culture includes not only the intangible beliefs of a people but also
the domain of social action: rituals, work, trade, political institutions,
family and kinship, and so on. …
• Culture cannot be reduced to a catalog of values, traits, ideas, behaviors,
and institutions. One has to go inside a culture, talk to people, and find
out how they see their world and how commonalities cut across different
individuals and groups …
• A cultural perspective implies studying science and technology
from the point of view of different groups of people.”
• David Hess (1995), Science and Technology in a Multicultural World, pp. 10-11
Engineering, Culture & Nation
• Culture – Culture Matters, Peace Corps
• The Concept of Self
• Personal vs. Societal Obligations
• The Concept of Time
• The Locus of Control
• Nation + Gender + Race + Class + Age + History + etc.