Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Introduction
Globalization is a major force that has been shaping our world in the last decades and its
influence on our lives are everyday stronger. Today people in each corner of the world are closer
than ever before. Modern communication technology has developed to a point that it is possible
to interact with anybody that has access to the internet. High-speed transportation systems allow
us to reach any place in the world in a short period of time. Thus, international meetings among
business executives, public officers and other professionals have increased tremendously.
Tourism has impressively expended and individuals move from one continent to other to explore
our planet. As a consequence, individuals, public and private institutions, and other entities have
being investing lot of efforts to develop abilities that enable us to understand and live
gregariously with different cultures. Especially, educational institutions play a central role in
preparing younger generations for the globally interconnected world.
Globalization has been impacting the conventional perceptions of all fields of study, and
engineering is not an exception. The engineering education community worldwide agrees to the
need for increasing engineers’ ability to practice in a global context. However, global education
for engineers is still a young field and much more need to be understood. The purpose of this
literature review is to understand what drove the need to include cross-cultural education in
engineering schools and to investigate its conceptualization, development, and assessment
methods. Therefore, first I’ll explore what rationales and which stakeholders have historically
urged educational institutions to develop global competence for engineers. Second, I’ll review
three major conceptualization of global competence in the engineering education literature. Then,
I’ll discuss kinds of programs that have been developed to educate globally competent engineers.
Finally I’ll review the most common assessments methods used to measure students’ global
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 1 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
competence. Thus, the reader will be informed about the conceptualization, education, and
assessment of global competence in engineering, and will be able to understand strengths,
weaknesses, and gaps of the different aspect of global engineering education.
Rationales for Fostering Global Competence: Historical Perspectives
Although only in the recent years the engineering community has been extremely active
in fostering global competency for engineer, the internationalization of the engineering discipline
has long historical roots. Jesiek and Beddoes (2010) have outlined the historical development of
global engineering education in the last half century. From World Wars to the cold war,
engineers have been sent abroad for mainly two reasons. On one hand, international education
and exchange programs ware seen as a new kind of cultural diplomacy. On the other hand, many
international programs were born to address problems in developing countries, especially in
Latin America. For instance, in the early 1960s, The Rural-Industry Technical-Assistance (RITA)
program sent UCLA professors and graduates to spend summers in the Brazilian state of Cearà.
The goals of RITA were focused both on the development of impoverished Brazilian
communities and on the enhancement of student learning. Although from the 1950s to the early
1960s many international programs were introduced in engineering schools, after the 1960s those
that advocated work and study abroad experiences had failed to scale up programs and
participation remained limited to the willingness of few dedicated students and faculties.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the US economic and industrial global footprint increased
significantly, and such a trend raised national concerns about competing successfully in the
international market. Thus, global competiveness became an appealing rationale for fostering
international education and a good strategy to scale up international programs in engineering
schools. However, economic success was not the only motivation for the developing of global
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 2 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
engineering education. Some justified international education as a mean to improving various
technical and professional skills, raising students’ understanding of the impact of culture on
technology, and foster their role as global citizens.
The efforts to internationalize engineering education, however, have markedly intensified
only since the mid-1990s and continue growing. Both industrial and academic stakeholders have
been urging universities to educate engineers who are able to practice effectively in a globally
interconnected world. In 1997, Boring and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) produced the
“Manifesto for Global Engineering Education”, which emphasized the importance of
understanding engineering in context, and appreciating other cultures and diversity in addition to
other attributes (B. K. Jesiek & Beddoes, 2010). The voice of industry was also reported by
Swearengen, Barnes, and Coe (2002). At an ASME on manufacturing engineering, they found
out that companies clearly expressed the need for engineers who can work productively with
radically different cultures, educational backgrounds, quality standards, professional registration
requirements, and across time zones (Swearengen, Barnes, & Coe, 2002). More recently
Continental AG has promoted the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative (Continental AG,
2006). The study involved eight universities worldwide and aimed to evaluate global engineering,
engineering education needs and challenges, and critical factors necessary for educating the
future engineers. Results of the study pointed out that universities need to increase engineering
graduates’ global competence, foster international mobility and partnership with industry, and
create theoretical foundation of global engineering education.
From academia, many documents have been driving the change of engineering paradigm
and exhorting for globally competent engineers. First of all, an imperative to introduce
appreciation of global issues in engineering curricula arrives from the Accreditation Board of
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 3 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Engineering and Technology (ABET). In fact, ABET’s EC2000 accreditation criteria requires
that engineering graduates “understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and
societal context” (ABET, 2011, p. 3). However, such a standard is quite broad and let space for
many different interpretations and conceptualization of global engineering education.
Nonetheless, ABET’s view is also fostered by two publications- The engineer of 2020 and
Educating the engineer of 2020 -by the National Academy of Engineering (National Academy of
Engineering, 2005a, 2005b). Both reports argue that, among many other characteristics,
engineers need to develop an awareness of sociocultural issues that have been and will continue
impacting engineering practice. Moreover, Duderstadt (2008) laid down the roadmap to the
future of engineering education, research, and practice. In his report, he indicated that
engineering education needs to face the challenges of globalization. So that, engineers can be
better prepared to enter the global market, work in global corporations, and collaborate in
multidisciplinary teams characterized by cultural diversity.
Finally the document that, perhaps, includes the most diverse set of rationales for global
engineering education is the Newport Declaration (Jesiek & Beddoes, 2010). The declaration
summarizes how globalization dynamics and discourses are affecting the traditional idea of
engineering and the way engineering is taught and practiced. While recognizing the need to
prepare engineers to practice in a world characterized by rapid social and technical changes, it
also stresses the importance of promoting global outreach, community, and collaboration (Jesiek
& Beddoes, 2010). Thus, for a variety of reasons and from a variety of stakeholders, global
engineering education has been recognized to be extremely vital for the future of engineering
professionals. Therefore, scholars have developed conceptualizations, education models and
assessments tools to foster the education of globally competent engineers.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 4 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Conceptualization of Global Engineering Competence
The need for global competence has been historically recognized and it is becoming even
more important recently, thus scholars have developed a variety of conceptualizations of global
engineering competence. However, yet there is no univocal definition of global engineering
competence. In fact some have provided a specific definition of global competence which is
supported by a conceptual model. Others have developed learning criteria and outcomes. Some
have defined it by providing a list of significant attributes. In this section, I’ll review the three
major conceptualizations of global competence that have been largely cited by the engineering
education literature.
One of the first conceptual model of global engineering competence comes from the
work of Lohmann, Rollins, & Hoey (2006). In their model, they defined global competence as
the:
“the ability to work knowledgeably and live comfortably in a
transnational engineering environment and global society”
(Lohmann, Rollins, & Hoey, 2006, p. 1).
The authors don’t just give a definition, but also provides a conceptual model to define such a
competence. The model is based on five elements: (1) proficiency in a second language, (2)
international coursework and (2) an immersive international experience which should be
combined in a coherent program that (4) ties the elements together and (5) integrates them
within the student’s major (Lohmann, et al., 2006). The most important feature of such a model
is the idea that global competence is not an add-on to the traditional engineering curriculum, but
it’s integrated in to it. However, such a definition seems too broad and it’s not clear what the
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 5 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
terms “work knowledgeably” and “live comfortably” mean, and what are the key features of a
transnational engineering environment and a global society.
Rather than giving a precise definition of global competence, Downey et al. (2006)
provided a learning criterion to guide the creation of and to assess students’ learning from the
Engineering Cultures course that they developed at Virginia Tech and Colorado Schools of
Mines. In this course students learn about the historical and cultural aspect of engineering
profession in several countries. The learning criterion is stated as follows:
“Though course instruction and interactions, students will acquire
the knowledge, ability, and predisposition to work effectively with
people who define problems differently than they do” (Downey et
al., 2006, p. 110)
It’s clear that the authors of this conceptualization focused on the problem definition rather than
on the ways engineering task is performed. Additionally, it does not include the concept of
culture differences, because it assumes that people who are born and raised in different countries
are likely to define technical problem in different ways. Moreover, the authors do not use the
word “engineers”, indicating their interest to educate students to work effectively with nonengineers as well.
The learning criterion also comprises three learning outcomes. The first component
focuses on knowledge. In the authors’ opinion, successful global experiences should allow
students to acquire and demonstrate understanding of how engineers and non-engineers may
differ in their work and in the meaning their work has for their careers and lives. The second
learning outcome is ability. Globally competent engineers should be able to go beyond the pure
knowledge of similarities and differences among engineers and non-engineers of other countries.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 6 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
They will have to demonstrate an intellectual and behavioral ability to apply the knowledge
acquired into everyday practices of engineering work. Finally, the third learning outcome is
predisposition. Such outcome is more difficult to fully identify and assess. In this case, the term
used by the authors does not refer to the personal character of individuals, but to “learnable
tendencies” or “patterned actions” that allows students to treat co-workers from other countries
as people who have knowledge and value.
Downey et al.’s (2006) conceptualization is very interesting because it’s one of the few
models that integrate the sociocultural and technical worlds. Even if their framework might
appear too specific to the Engineering Culture course and therefore difficult to use in other
settings, it is quite flexible and can be adapted to different situations. For instance, Fuchs and
Mihelcic (2006) followed Downey et al.’s (2006) framework to create learning criteria and
objectives for Sustainable Futures programs of Michigan Technological University. The learning
criterion is stated as follows:
“Through coursework and international experience in sustainable
development, students will acquire the knowledge, ability, and
predisposition to integrate economic environmental, and societal
sustainability in defining and solving problems” (Fuchs &
Mihelcic, 2006, p. 2).
The authors acknowledge the importance of global competency in international sustainable
projects and point out some relevant factors that have to be considered when working in global
contexts, such as social, economic, and environmental issues. However, their learning outcome
does not include explicitly the effect that cultural differences can have to the design process and
how to deal with such differences in international development projects. Moreover, the model
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 7 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
does not give a definition or a conceptualization of global engineering competence, and probably
was not really the purpose of the authors.
Diverging from an approaches that consider learning outcomes and conceptual models,
other authors didn’t give a precise definition, however they provided a list of attributes that
describe what it means to be globally competent. For instance, Parkinson, Harb, and Magleby
(2009) defined 13 dimensions or attributes of global competence. Such attributes were based on
previous definitions, experience with the authors’ study abroad programs, and stated objectives
of courses and programs which prepare students to be globally competent. From a survey,
Parkinson, Harb, and Magleby (2009), found out that , among the 13 attributes presented, the
following five are conisdered especially important by both academic and industrial
rappresentatives:
1. Appreciation of other cultures. This attribute refers to the ability to avoiding the idea
that one’s own culture is superior to all others. Thus, engineers need to develop
appreciation and sensitive to others cultures.
2. Proficieny to work in or direct a team of ethnic or cultural diversity. This attribute
refers to the ablity to deal with the problems arising when working in a team
charactriezed by diverse cultures. This dimension is strongly realted to the following
attribute.
3. Communication across cultures. This attribute includes an understainding of cultural
differences regarding status, formality, saving face, directness, and the meaning of
specific words.
4. Opportunity to practice engineering in a global context. This dimension focus on
practise, rather than on knowledge or understanding.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 8 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
5. Ability to deal with ethcial issues arising from cultural or national differences. Ethical
issues in this case range from bribes, tax evasion, to safety standards.
Although such attributes are clearly pertinent with the problems arising when working or
collaborating with individuals from other countries, this conceptualization has many drawbacks.
Fisrt of all, the list is very long and many of the attributes could be grouped together. For
instance, appreciation of other cultures, communication across cultures, ethical issues could be
grouped in one larger cathegory that difines parcticular aspects of culture. Second, most of these
attributes seems to be add-ons to the traditional idea of engineering rather than integrated with
the concept of engineer itself. Finally, the authors were not very clear on the process they used to
define the attributes and their framework might not be completely transfareble to other studies
and reliable. However, this conceptualization clearly shows the importance of incorparating
global competence in engineering curricula.
Educational Programs for Global Engineering Comptence
Despite the lack of agreement on the definition of global comptence for engineers, the
ABET accreditation criteria requires students to “understand the impact of engineering solutions
in a global and societal context” (ABET, 2011, p. 3). However, such a learning outcome is quite
ambiguous and leaves room for interpretations. As a consequence, engineering schools have
developed a variety of educational programs aimed to educate globally competent engineers.
While scholars have proposed classification schemes to describe the variety of global
experiences engineers undertake during their education (Grandin & Hedderich, 2009; Lohmann
et al., 2006; Parkinson, 2007), this section aims to describe what kind of programs have been
developed and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Even if the programs are grouped
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 9 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
together because they possess similar characteristics, such a classification does not aim to draw
solid boundaries, it rather provide a structure for the flow of the discussion.
A first group of programs that provide global experiences fall into the broad category of
study abroad programs. While in Europe the majority of study abroad programs are arranged
through international organization such as ERASMUS/SOCRATES, in U.S.A. the single
institutions have independently developed partnership with foreign universities and arranged
students exchanges (Klahr & Ratti, 2000). Parkinson (2007) has given a very narrow
classification of the study programs offered in U.S. engineering schools. In general, study abroad
experiences vary widely in length, in the kind of courses offered, and in the learning outcomes
desired.
Some of these global experiences are quite short and fall into Parkinson’s (2007)
extended field trip category. This format includes a 1-3 weeks tour involving visits to companies
and/or universities in one or more countries. This type of program is good to give an overview to
the issues related to global engineering; however it does not provide much depth into such issues.
Nonetheless, it can be the starting point to motivate students to be involved in more extensive
programs. An example of such kind of program is called “Plus3” and is offered by the University
of Pittsburgh (Alexander, Besterfield-Sacre, Matherly, & Shuman, 2008). This program is
designed for both business and engineering students who are sent abroad for two weeks after
having attended four preparatory sessions. While abroad, participants attend lectures in host
universities, explore cultural and historical sites, and visit local companies. Another slightly
longer extended field trip is the Summer School in Grenoble program by University of Texas
(Ellzey, Aanstoos, & Schmidt, 2005). Students spent six weeks in the University of Grenoble,
France, taking a course about American foreign policy, and a more engineering-related course
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 10 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
about engineering standards and industrial policy in a global environment. The programs
included organized field trips to the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization,
the International Standards Organization, and the United Nations Offices in Geneva, Switzerland,
as well as a tour of a nuclear power plant in France. However, courses were taught in English
and limited to students of University of Texas at Austin. Thus, participants didn’t have the
opportunity to have rich interactions with local students.
When universities aim to provider more extensive experiences, they have to rely on
exchange programs. An equal number of students are exchanged between home and abroad
institution, and participants take regular courses in the abroad language and spend usually at least
one semester in the hosting university. Thus, students receive an in-depth experience by learning
a language while living and study abroad (Parkinson, 2007). A fairly conventional example of an
exchange program is offered by Kettering University and allows students to take engineering
courses in either the UK or Germany (Nasr et al., 2002). All the courses abroad are taught in
English, but students can take German language course if they want to. Another example of
exchange program is the International Teams in Engineering Industrial Projects, which is a
cooperative manufacturing and production engineering program between two US universities in
North Carolina and two universities in Brazil (Raubenheimer & Young, 2008). Rather than being
just an exchange program, this project aimed to provide students an experience to enhance their
ability to work in cross-cultural teams. The students took 9 to 12 credits abroad in Portuguese
and participated in design classes. Thus, they had the opportunity to work together with Brazilian
engineering students. However, the learning of cross-cultural skills was left to the experience
abroad and no additional support was given to their learning experience.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 11 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Finally, dual degrees are among the most intensive study abroad programs available.
Students obtain one degree from the home university and one from the abroad university.
Usually, these programs are targeted to graduate degrees (Parkinson, 2007). The university of
Rhode Island offer a dual degree with the Technical University of Braunschweig (Berka, 2011).
The program is research oriented and participants are expected to spend at least one year abroad.
In addition to attending classes, the students participate in research activities and applications in
industry. The experience is therefore much richer and provides a more immersive global
experience allowing students to develop stronger intercultural skills. Virginia Tech offers an
undergraduate dual degree program in collaboration with Technische Universitat Darmstadt
(Germany) (Bohn & Hampe, 2012). The participants have a full immersion by taking one year
engineering coursework in a foreign language and earning a Bachelor of Science degree from
each university. While this program provides same considerations about the effectiveness of dual
degrees programs, the work by Bohn and Hampe’s (2012) provide useful information for
developing a dual degree program with university that uses a different curricular designs and
standards.
Study abroad programs aim to provide coursework experiences to students. However,
scholars believe that global competence can be also achieved by exposing students to
international engineering workplaces(Allert, Atkinson, Groll, & Hirleman, 2007). Internships or
Co-op abroad allow students to work in a foreign company or at an international branch of a U.S.
company. This kind of experience is usually less structured, but it can expose participants to
informal learning related to business issues involving teamwork, communication, design,
manufacturing, and other labor-intensive experiences (Parkinson, 2007). Because graduate
students are not usually able to attend international study abroad programs or take foreign
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 12 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
language courses, Virginia Tech developed the Exploring Interfaces through Graduate Education
and Research (EIGER) program to allow graduate students to experience the global workplace
(Cutler & Borrego, 2010). EIGER is an interdisciplinary program designed to encourage
international collaboration around the research topic of interfaces. As a requirement of the
program, students are invited to attend an international internship. Cutler and Borrego (2010)
interviewed some of the students that undertook an international internship within the EIGER
program. Unfortunately, they did not find strong evidence of global competency. Such results
were attributed to many reasons: (1) the relatively short duration of the internships, (2) the lack
of structure in the internship, and (3) the undergraduate focus of existing global competence
frameworks. This study suggest that the internships itself is not enough to develop global
competence. Thus, institutions need to better structure such experiences.
Another alternative to study abroad and international internship are research abroad
programs. These experiences are limited to one or two students that travel to an abroad
laboratory and conduct research under the guidance of a local scholar (Parkinson, 2007).
Although such programs are usually available at the graduate level, there are some programs
offered also for undergraduates. For instance, at Howard University, the College of Engineering,
Architecture and Computer Sciences developed the Global Education Awareness and Research
Undergraduate Program (GEAR-UP) that allows minority students to experience a research
project in an international context (Fleming, Burrell, Patterson, Fredericks, & Chouikha, 2012).
The program was developed to educate globally engaged leaders and it involved travel to an
international destination where teams of US students collaborated on research projects with
teams of students from other countries. As a result of these experiences, the authors suggest that
a successful research abroad program has to (1) begin the pre-departure orientation as early as
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 13 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
possible, (2) offer an in-depth pre-departure course to better prepare students for the international
experience, and (3) gather extensive information about the project prior departure.
Universities have also begun including global service learning projects in their
engineering curricula. In this case, students work on a project during a semester or more and then
travel abroad to deliver a product that connects technology to society (Parkinson, 2007). One of
the oldest global service programs for engineers is the Global Perspectives Program (GPP) at
Worchester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) (DiBiasio & Mello, 2004). The GPP was designed to
engage students in open-ended ambiguous problems situated outside of the major discipline and
to expose them to cultural, social, and intellectual diversity. The projects are very
interdisciplinary and aim to educate engineering graduates that are able to understand how their
careers will affect the larger society of which they belong to. A group of students mentored by
faculty travels to an international location where they will work on various projects for two
months. All students receive a site-specific pre-project training that focus on cultural and
language education, and on specific technical and research training.
Some universities have been developing programs that integrate sustainability to an
international development project. An exemplar institution in this area is Michigan
Technological University that has developed several global service programs at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels (Mihelcic et al., 2008). These programs combine field trip,
technical courses, and project-based service learning so that students can learn about concepts of
sustainability and social justice. MTU offers four options to students: (1) participation to a local
chapter of Engineers Without Borders; (2) participation to an international design project for
civil and environmental engineering majors; (3) enrollment in undergraduate or graduate
certificate program in international sustainable development; and enrollment in a master program
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 14 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
that requires students to spend at least seven months working as U.S. Peace Corps volunteers
abroad. At the end of each program, students should be aware of societal and community issues
that impact the success of engineering projects throughout the world. However, results on the
assessment of these programs have not yet been published.
Finally, a number of universities have created programs that combine many of the
international experiences presented so far. One of the first integrated programs specifically for
engineering students is the International Engineering Program at the University of Rhode Island
(J. Grandin, 2006). The program is offered to undergraduate students who earn a degree both in
engineering and in foreign language (German, French, or Spanish). Thus, participants are
required to take extensive coursework in language, foreign culture, and engineering. Additionally,
students spend an academic year abroad either on an internship, studying at an exchange
university, or undertaking a combination of coursework and internship. As a result, participants
are exposed to very comprehensive international experience. However, students enrolled in this
program will need an additional year to earn their degrees. Moreover, the students’ engineering
majors appears not to be directly linked with the international study abroad experiences. Similar
programs, but less intensive, are offered by Penn State and Iowa State, where the first requires
minimal international experience (9 weeks), and the latter none (Lohmann et al., 2006).
One of the most comprehensive programs cited in the literature is the Global Engineering
Alliance for Research and Education (GREARE) program at Purdue (Hirleman et al., 2004;
Parkinson, 2007). Such a program is one of the few that integrate international study with
internships and a multi-national design team project. Students apply to the program while they
are in their freshmen year. If admitted, during their sophomore year, students are required to take
coursework in a foreign language (either German or Chinese). Participants are not expected to
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 15 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
become fluent speaker in the foreign language, but the purpose is to give them some knowledge
so that they can survive in the host country, and perhaps present a project report in the second
language. In the summer between the sophomore and junior year students attend a domestic
internship in a company that operates also abroad. Thus, students experience first the U.S.
engineering workplace. At the beginning of the second semester students are sent abroad.
Usually, the first months they do an internship in the foreign branch of the company they worked
at the summer before. As a consequence, students can experience both the domestic and abroad
workplace. Then, students attend a semester in a partner university oversea. However, courses
are usually taught in English. At the host institution students begin a design project in
collaboration with local students. Finally, the design project and the team are moved back to
Purdue where the international team focuses on prototype selection and fabrication. At the end
of the program the students will have acquired a large set of competencies that will allow them to
be globally competent in the international workplace.
Assessment Methods
As it is important to conceptualize global engineering competence and to develop
programs for transferring such a skill, it’s fundamental to develop instruments that allow
administrators and faculty to assess the actual gain in global competence of students. Surveys are
the most widely used instruments, because are faster to analyze and can be given to large
population. Yet, no survey that specifically measure global competence for engineers has been
developed and validated. Hence, engineering educators rely on survey developed outside the
engineering education context. Other than survey also some qualitative instruments, such as
journals and global scenarios, have been used and/or developed. Finally, combinations of
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 16 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
qualitative and quantitative methods have been increase used. In this section, I’ll review the most
used survey in global engineering programs, and other instruments that have been employed.
One of the most widely used tools to assess cross-cultural competence is the Intercultural
Development Inventory (IDI) (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003), which is a 50-item survey
instrument that measures intercultural sensitivity according to Bennett's (1993) Development
Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The DMIS was created as an explanation of how
people construct cultural differences and its underlying assumption is that “as one’s experience
of cultural difference becomes more complex and sophisticated, one’s potential competence in
intercultural relations increases” (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003, p 423). This model
assumes that any individual is presumed to go through six world views while developing
intercultural sensitivity, namely: denial, defense/reversal, minimization, acceptance, adaption,
and integration. The IDI was developed with the purpose to assess each of the six stages of the
DMIS. Although many studies in engineering have reported IDI data, I’ll report few relevant
examples. For instance, both Georgia Tech and Purdue University have published IDI results for
a large number of engineering students that were not enrolled in an international program
(Lohmann, Gordon, Harwell, McLaughlin, & Paraska, 2008; Thompson & Jesiek, 2010). Both
studies showed higher levels of intercultural sensitivity for females compared to males, and
suggested that students opting into an immersive study abroad program tend to have higher IDI.
This tool has also been used to study changes in intercultural development of engineering
students resulting from global engineering experiences. However, the IDI has been providing
mixed results. Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, and Paige (2009) used data from 61 different
programs to detect significant increases in IDI scores for students enrolled in a variety of study
abroad programs. Although engineering students showed the greatest numerical increase among
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 17 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
the entire set of academic majors studied, this finding was not statistically significant, due to the
very small sample size. Another example is a study by Bland (2008) on incoming freshman, and
outgoing seniors. This work also included a pre- and post-testing of IDI for engineering students
participating in a short term abroad. However, while few students demonstrated an increase in
their development of intercultural sensitivity, others showed no change or even decrease of
intercultural sensitivity. As seen from the previous examples, even if IDI is a very appealing
instrument because it was validated and largely used outside engineering, it has not provided
meaningful results so far.
Other survey instruments have been used more successfully to measure a variety of
constructs related to intercultural or global competence. For instance, another well-established
model of cross-cultural competence is the Universal Diverse Orientation, that represents “an
attitude of awareness and acceptance of both the similarities and differences among people”
(Miville et al., 1999, p 291). Such a construct can be measured by using the Miville-Guzman
Universality-Diversity Scale (M-GUDS), which is a 45-item survey. In engineering, Jesiek, Shen,
and Haller (2012) used a short form version (15-items) of M-GUDS to assess affective,
behavioral, and cognitive dimensions of engineering students’ UDO. The study showed that
students who opt into a global program tend to have higher MGUDS scores, suggesting that
students who possess a higher initial cross-cultural competence are more likely to take part to an
international experience. Additionally, the pre- and post-testing revealed significant increases of
M-GUDS score, which demonstrate that international experiences are indeed a valid method to
educate globally competent engineers. Thus, M-GUDS resulted to be a more efficient instrument
to assess cross-cultural competence for engineers.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 18 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
However, both IDI and M-GUDS measure specific elements of cross-cultural
competence, but are not enough comprehensive to assess the complex construct of global
competence as it is related to the engineering practice. Thus, some researchers have been
creating new tools that are able to measure effectively various aspects of global competence in
engineering education and practice. An example of such an instrument is the Ragusa’s
Engineering Global Preparedness Index (EGPI) (Ragusa, 2011). The EPGI is a 30-question
survey that is constituted of four scales, each measuring a different aspect of global engineering
competence: (1) engineering ethics, (2) engineering efficacy, (3) engineering global-centrism, (4)
engineering community connectedness. The preliminary study showed that EGPI scores are
partially predicted by socio-demographic characteristics, such as citizenship and ethnicity, and
prior experience aboard in life and work. However, the instrument is rather new and therefore
there are no studies reporting changes over time, or before and after global learning experiences.
Alternatively to using quantitative methods to assess global engineering competence,
some scholars have introduced the use of qualitative methods, such as reflective journal.
Reflective journals are an important piece of service-learning pedagogy and have been used in
global service learning activities (Bielefeldt, Paterson, & Swan, 2009). Reflective essays are used
mainly for aiding the learning process of students in service-learning contexts. However, they
can also serve as assessment instruments, because contain reach information about students’
changes in attitude and identity. Reflective journals are also used in combination of quantitative
methods. For example Downey et al. (2006) developed a scoring rubric for assessing essays that
students wrote as requirement of the Engineering Cultures courses. Such a rubric is used in
combination of pre and post surveys to assess gains in global competence. Similarly, Jesiek et al.
(2011) used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the International
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 19 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Research and Education in Engineering (IREE) program that supported the development of
globally competent engineering researchers. In addition to the already cited methods, Jesiek et al.
(2011) developed global scenarios, i.e., critical incidents describing puzzling situations in crosscultural engineering contexts. However, a scoring rubric for this instrument is still under
development and no significant results were reported. Although surveys are the preferred tools to
measure competence, the literature shows that many other qualitative instruments can be used
and that the combination of both qualitative and quantitative tools can give very exhaustive
results.
Conclusion
We live in a world that is everyday more globally interconnected and interdependent.
Such a reality is shaping the way we see and interact with the things and people that surround us.
This change does not affect only our personal lives, but also our professional lives. Thus,
educational institutions have been urged to prepare students for the globalized world, and
engineering institutions and scholars have been intensifying their efforts to achieve such a
complicated and vital objective. The internationalization of engineering education is not a new
process. Efforts to expose engineers to trans-national experiences can be dated back to the World
Wars. However, only since the mid-90s institutions have been scaling up international programs.
Rationales such as international economic competiveness, humanitarian projects, cultural
diplomacy, and international collaborations have been driving the internationalization of
engineering schools. As a consequence, some theoretical frameworks have been developed, a
large variety of international experiences have been included in engineering curricula, and
assessment methods to measure gains of global competence have been employed.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 20 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
The three conceptualization of global engineering competence reviewed possess some
strength, but also many weaknesses. The attributes proposed by Parkinson (2009) is very
comprehensive and points out many fundamental characteristics that global competent engineers
should possess. However, the process to develop such attributes is not clear and is mostly based
on personal experiences, thus reliability and validity of the model are hard to be determined.
Moreover, the list of attributes is too long and overlapping; in fact many attributes could have
been grouped together. The attributes appear to be add-ons to the typical characteristics of
engineers. On the other hand, both Lohmann et al. (2006) and Downey et al. (2006) have a more
integrated approach. Especially Downey et al.’s (2006) model integrates the sociocultural world
to the technical world of engineering. However, even if the three models have some
commonalities, there is no agreement on the definition of global engineering education.
Moreover, there have not been any efforts to develop a conceptualization of global engineering
competence from an empirical perspective. Many engineers have been working in international
settings and from their experiences scholars might be able to find a unique conceptual model that
better fits the reality of the international engineering workplace.
In order to teach global engineering competence to students, universities have relied
mainly on international experiences. Many study abroad programs are offered for engineers and
varies in lengths and purpose. Shorter programs are good to superficially expose student to issues
related to globalization and to motivate them to further undertake international experiences.
Longer programs are more immersive and comprehensive therefore allows students to have more
comprehensive transnational experiences. However, the international experience by itself is not
enough. Literature showed that the better programs must be very integrated with the engineering
curricula. Moreover, students must be well prepared before going abroad, therefore in-depth pre-
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 21 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
departure sessions and orientations are much recommended. Yet, no programs were found that
included post-experience activities to enforce and consolidate participants’ learning. Moreover,
institutions focus only on international experiences to raise global competence, and there is no
work considering class activities aimed to develop global skills domestically with the only
exception of Engineering Cultures (Doweney et al., 2006). Therefore other forms of instructional
activities should be considered in future research.
Scholars have been using many different tools to assess global engineering competence.
In most cases, surveys tools, like IDI and M-GUDS, have been given to engineering students.
However, IDI has not been giving satisfactory results. Moreover, such tools measure specific
aspect of cross-cultural competence, but are not able to assess the cultural aspects related to
engineering practice. Ragusa (2011) has developed a tool specific to engineering practice,
however few results are available. More work should be done to create assessments tools that
measure specifically global engineering competence and that rely on theoretical framework of
global engineering competence. Literature suggests that a mix of qualitative and quantitative
methods might generate appropriate assessment instruments.
Finally this literature review showed that the three core parts of global engineering
education (conceptualization, assessment, and education) are not aligned. In fact, most of the
international programs do not rely on solid theoretical frameworks and appropriate assessment
methods. Moreover, most of the assessment tools are not related to any of the reviewed
conceptualization of global competence for engineers. The only exception is the model provided
by Downey et al. (2006), because it uses a specific pedagogy to teach global competence, which
is assessed with tools developed based on their learning criterion. Hence, future programs that
aim to develop global competence for engineers should make sure that everything fits together.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 22 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Bibliography
ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC). (2011). Criteria for Accrediting
Engineering Programs: Effective for Reviews During the 2012‐2013 Accreditation Cycle.
Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.
Alexander, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Matherly, C., & Shuman, L. (2008). Internationalizing our
engineers: Short-terms experential programs abraod for engineering students. ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition.
Allert, B. I., Atkinson, D. L., Groll, E. A., & Hirleman, E. D. (2007). Making the case for global
engineering: Building foreign language collaborations for designing, implementing, and
assessing programs. Online Journal of Global Engineering Education, 2(2).
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural
sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21 – 71).
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Berka, S. (2011). The University of Rhode Island graduate dual degree program with the
Technical University of Braunschweig: Its added value, synergies, and gains for
engineering. Online Journal for Global Engineering Education, 6(1).
Bielefeldt, A., Paterson, K., & Swan, C. (2009). Measuring the impacts of project-based service
learning. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Bland, L. (2008). Providing engineers cross-cultural experiences: Is it truly needed? Proceedings
of the 2008 Christian Engineering Educators Conference (pp. 65 – 79).Geneva College.
Bohn, J. H., & Hampe, M. J. (2012). Lesson learned with transatlantic undergraduate
engineering dual degree program. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Continental AG. (2006). Final Report of the Global Engineering Excellence Initiative–educating
the next generation of engineers for the global workplace. Hanover, Germany.
Cutler, S., & Borrego, M. (2010). Developing global competence in graduate engineering and
science students through an IGERT international internship program. 40th ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference.
DiBiasio, D., & Mello, N. (2004). Multi-level assessment of program outcomes: Assessing a
nontraditional study abraod program in the engineering disciplines. Frontiers: The
interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abraod, 10, 237 - 252.
Downey, G. L., Lucena, C. L., Moskal, B. M., Parkhurst, R., Bigley, T., Hays, … Nichols-Belo,
A. (2006). The globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define
problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 107 – 122.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 23 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Duderstadt, J. (2008). Engineering for a Changing Roa:, A Roadmap to the Future of
Engineering Practice, Research, and Education. The Millennium Project, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ellzey, J. L., Aanstoos, T. A., & Schmidt, K. J. (2005). Educating the global engineer: A new
international program at the University of Texas at Austin. ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition.
Fleming, L. N., Burrell, J. O., Patterson, W., Fredericks, A. C., & Chouikha, M. F. (2012).
Impacting engineering students ’ global perspectives : The research abroad experiences of
HBCU undergraduates. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Fuchs, V., & Mihelcic, J. (2006). Engineering education for international sustainability:
curriculum design under the sustainable futures model. Proceedings of the 5th Annual ASEE
Global Colloquium on Engineering Education.
Grandin, J. (2006). Preparing engineers for the global workplace. Online Journal for Global
Engineering Education, 1(1).
Grandin, J. M., & Hedderich, N. (2009). Intercultural Competence in Engineering: Global
Competence for Engineers. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Intercultural
Competence (pp. 362 – 373). Thousands Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The
intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4),
421–443. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4
Hirleman, E. D., Atkinson, D. L., Groll, E. A., Matthews, J., Allert, B., … Xi, L.F. (2004).
GEARE: A comprehensive program for gloabalizing engineering education. ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition.
Jesiek, B., Chang, Y., Shen, Y., Lin, J. J. J., Hirleman, E. D., & Groll, E. (2011). International
Research and Education in Engineering (IREE) 2010 China: Developing globally competent
engineering researchers. 2011 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Jesiek, B. K., & Beddoes, K. (2010). From diplomacy and development to competitiveness and
globalization: historical perspectives on the internationalization of engineering education. In
G. L. Downey & K. Beddoes (Eds.), What is Global Engineering Education for?: The
Making of International Educators (pp. 45–76). San Rafael, CA: Mordan & Claypool.
doi:10.2200/S00302ED1V01Y201010GES001
Jesiek, B. K., Shen, Y., & Haller, Y. (2012). Cross-cultural competence : A comparative
assessment of engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(1),
144–155.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 24 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Klahr, S. C., & Ratti, U. (2000). Increasing engineering student participation in study abraod: A
study of US and European programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1), 79
– 102.
Lohmann, J., Gordon, J., Harwell, K. E., McLaughlin, S. W., & Paraska, S. E. (2008). Annual
impact report of the quality enhancement plan on student learning: Strengthening the
global competence and research experiences of undergraduate students. Georgia Institute
of Tehcnology, Atlanta, GE.
Lohmann, J. R., Rollins, H. A., & Hoey, J. J. (2006). Defining, developing and assessing global
competence in engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), 119–131.
doi:10.1080/03043790500429906
Mihelcic, J. R., Paterson, K. G., Phillips, L. D., Zhang, Q., Watkins, D. W., Barkdoll, B. D., …
Hokanson, D. R. (2008). Educating engineers in the sustainable futures model with a global
perspective. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 25(4), 255–263.
doi:10.1080/10286600802002981
Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., & Fuertes, J. (1999).
Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville-Guzman UniversalityDiversity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 291–307. doi:10.1037//00220167.46.3.291
Nasr, K., Berry, J., Taylor, G., Webster, W., Echempati, R., & Chandran, R. (2002). Global
engineering education through study-abroad experiences: Assessment and lessons learned.
ASEE/SEFI/TUB International Colloquim. Berlin, Germany.
National Academy of Engineering, T. (2005a). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in
the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering, T. (2005b). Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting
Engineering Education to the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Parkinson, A. (2007). Engineering study abroad programs: formats, challenges, best practices.
Online Journal for Global Engineering Education, 2(2).
Parkinson, A., Harb, J., & Magleby, S. (2009). Developing Global Competence in Engineers:
What does it mean? What is most important? ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Ragusa, G. (2011). Engineering preparedness for global workforces: Curricular connections and
experiential impacts. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Raubenheimer, D. C., & Young, R. E. (2008). Brazilian engineering exchange program. 38th
Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. doi:10.1109/FIE.2008.4720301
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 25 of 26
Global Engineering Competence: Conceptualization, Education, and Assessment
Swearengen, J. C., Barnes, S., & Coe, S. (2002). Globalization and the undergraduate
manufacturing engineering curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(2), 255 - 261.
Thompson, J., & Jesiek, B. K. (2010). Assessing the Intercultural Competence of Sophomore
Mechanical Engineering Students : Baseline Data and Analysis. ASEE Annual Conference
and Exposition. Louisville, KY.
Vande Berg, V., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown consortium project:
Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: International Journal of Study Abroad,
XVIII, 1 – 75.
Andrea Mazzurco
Page 26 of 26