GEDC 2013 Chicago - Global Engineering Deans Council 2013... · improve student education. The widespread use of ICT in engineering education is in its early stages. It seems clear

GEDC 2013 Chicago

Conference Report

Prepared by the GEDC Secretariat

Table of Contents Message from GEDC Chair and Immediate-Past Chair ..................................................... 2

Message from GEDC 2013 Chicago Conference Chairs ..................................................... 3

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6

Sunday, 20 October Welcome Reception ........................................................................................................... 8

Opening Session: Engineering Education in a Global, Technology-Driven Environment ... 8

Monday, 21 October Breakfast Session: MathWorks .......................................................................................... 9

Summaries of Plenary Sessions

Globalization of Engineering: Megatrends Shaping Society ............................... 10

Online, Open & Digital Education: The Flipped Classroom ............................... 11

Panel Discussion: Impact of Globalization and Information Technology on

Engineering, Education & Society ........................................................... 11

Lunch Session: Punjab Technical University ..................................................................... 13

Summaries & Findings

Digital Education: Hybrid Learning/Flipped Classrooms .................................... 13

MOOCS & Digital Education ................................................................................ 14

Tuesday, 22 October Lunch Session: Dassault Systèmes .................................................................................. 17

Summaries & Findings

Global Aspects of Research ................................................................................ 17

Accreditation in Engineering Education ............................................................. 19

Engineering Education in a Globalized World .................................................... 21

Summary of Closing Session ............................................................................................ 23

Appendix ......................................................................................................................... 24

GEDC Airbus Diversity Award Ceremony

New Deans Mentoring Session

GEDC Strategic Planning Session

Conference Committee Members

Conference Sponsors

GEDC 2013 Chicago Conference - Final Report

Globalization, Technology Enhanced Education and Transformed Faculty Roles P a g e | 2

Message from GEDC Chair and Immediate-Past Chair Since its beginning just five years ago, the Global Engineering Deans Council (GEDC) has

positioned itself as the premier organization for engineering deans around the world. With a

vision to transform engineering schools in support of societies in a global economy, the GEDC

partners with academia, industry and non-governmental organizations to achieve its vision. The

2013 annual conference provided deans from around the world an opportunity to learn more

about online digital education and the impact it has on the roles of our faculty. The conference

also provided the participants the opportunity to meet new colleagues, deepen existing

partnerships, and participate in professional development.

A highlight of the 2013 conference was the initiation of the GEDC Airbus Diversity Award. The

award was established as a partnership between Airbus and the GEDC to recognize and

encourage individual contributions to broadening participation in engineering. More

specifically, the award recognizes individuals who have been proactive in encouraging students

of all profiles and backgrounds (regardless of gender, social backgrounds, nationality, culture or

disability) to study and succeed in engineering. Our long-term objective is to ensure that

engineering schools and industry reflect the diversity of the communities they support, with

diversity recognized as a driver for innovation.

The conference also presented the opportunity for members to review the GEDC strategy that

was written at the Singapore conference in 2010. A key development was the recognition of the

growing importance of our corporate partners. The GEDC is growing rapidly, particularly through

the formation of national and regional chapters. Companies have recognized that the GEDC is an

excellent forum for connecting with deans who are responsible for producing the future

generation of students and the quality of their programs. There is no other body with this

geographical breadth of representation in the business of engineering education and research,

and the GEDC will work to build these corporate relationships.

The 2013 Annual Conference of the Global Engineering Deans Council on “Globalization,

Technology Enhanced Education and Transformed Faculty Roles” was co-chaired by Dr. Peter

Kilpatrick, Dean, College of Engineering, University of Notre Dame, USA and Dr. Paul Peercy,

Dean Emeritus, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin, USA. It was held at the Palmer

House Hilton Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, USA, October 20-22, 2013. The outstanding program and

magnificent venue attracted more than 230 participants.

We thank everyone who participated in and contributed to this Conference. We hope to see

you again in Dubai in 2014.

John Beynon, Chair of GEDC Sarah Rajala, Immediate-Past Chair of GEDC

Dean of Engineering Dean of Engineering

University of Adelaide, Australia Iowa State University, USA



Message from GEDC 2013 Chicago Conference Co-

Chairs The GEDC 2013 Chicago Conference had as its themes “Globalization, Technology Enhanced

Education, and Transformed Faculty Roles.” By all accounts, the Conference summarized well

our current understanding of the impacts of rapid advances in globalization and technology on

engineering education and research, and posed many intriguing questions about the future of

engineering higher education and the role that engineering faculty will play in the future

University.

One of our featured keynote speakers, Dr. Seeram Ramakrishna of the National University of

Singapore, focused his remarks on the impact of the technology revolution in Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) and of globalization on society, engineering education and

research. He drew special attention to the revolution in data generation that is here: a

technology infused environment flooded with zettabytes (billions of gigabytes) of new data each

day. As engineering educators we must be wiser, more resourceful, and make better use of the

data at our finger tips to modernize our curricula, enhance the pace of our innovations, and

deliver higher quality and more effective instruction. Dr. Ramakrishna also reminded us of how

globally connected and interdependent the world’s innovation environment is and how

engineering schools, colleges and universities must be at the forefront of that globally

connected innovation ecosystem. This will require new and innovative ways of partnering

among global research universities, such as the CREATE campus in Singapore, the new Cornell-

Technion partnership in New York, the Education City in Qatar, and other perhaps even more

creative ways of bringing existing and emerging research strengths from around the globe to

collaborate. Important issues that remain to be resolved in this innovation ecosystem are IP

sharing and cost sharing. Dr. Ramakrishna closed with some remarks on MOOCs, online

learning, and blended learning. One of the key take-home messages was from Salman Khan, the

inventor and founder of the Khan Academy: “human teachers (as opposed to online learning)

will become far more valuable (emphasis added) in the future because [the classroom] will be a

far more interactive place and they are going to be doing the things computers cannot do, which

is form bonds, motivate, mentor, diagnose.”

Our second featured keynote speaker, Dr. C. Daniel Mote, Jr., the new President of the US

National Academy of Engineering, described the evolution of research universities from the

1960s until today, a metamorphosis in which universities have gone from insular “ivory towers”

to key drivers of economic prosperity. This has resulted in dramatically expanded missions for

engineering colleges and Dr. Mote described the global drivers of those expanding missions:

accelerating change, accessible and inexpensive global communications, global partnerships,

globalization, expanding access to higher education, expanding opportunities for talent, cost

control, innovation, global “grand” challenges, and leadership challenges. Dr. Mote exhorted

the audience to adopt a number of attitudes and capabilities in response to these global drivers:

i. Develop the mindset and processes to expect and respond to disruptive change



ii. Make more effective use of communication technologies in every aspect of engineering

college operations

iii. Engage globally, have impact, and do it today (being fast and first); develop partnerships

and engagement on a global platform as a routine part of engineering colleges’

operations

iv. Prepare students to prosper in global careers, responsibilities, and understanding

v. Expand the footprint of engineering colleges to reach foreign governments, inter-

governmental organizations, and multi-national corporations

vi. Create and shut down definite-term programs abroad, programs having a clear

beginning, middle, and end

vii. Develop distinctive educational niches

viii. Develop strategies for nurturing and developing in-demand talent, particularly in

leadership, management, and “current skills” across disciplines

ix. Governments (local and national), students, and universities all must work together to

create clear plans for financing higher education; this will require responsible cost

control on the part of institutions and clear articulation of value propositions

x. Create university-wide cultures of innovation, led by engineering, that extend beyond

the campus to surrounding communities and beyond them internationally

xi. Develop cultures and strategies for creating large inter-disciplinary teams to tackle great

global “grand challenge” problems

xii. Create a vision which fulfills university and college missions while being responsive to

these global drivers: this is the most important responsibility of college and university

leaders today

In many respects, Dr. Mote’s remarks constitute a blueprint for action on the part of engineering

college deans and leaders. It is a clear, pragmatic look into the future and one of the great goals

of the GEDC should be to use our forum for comparing best practices in pursuing the

implementation of this blueprint.

Our third keynote speaker was Dr. Tae-Eog Lee, the Director of the Center for Excellence in

Learning and Teaching at the Korean Advanced Institute in Science and Technology (KAIST), who

spoke on “Open, Online, and Digital Education.” Dr. Lee focused on his University’s and his own

personal experience in implementing the flipped classroom model and blended learning, an

initiative KAIST calls “Education 3.0.” The flipped classroom and blended learning model

enables a move away from “lecturing-centric,” passive, one-way instruction to an environment

in which communication is bi-directional, student learning is active, interactive, cooperative, and

creative. Student evaluations indicate higher levels of satisfaction with the blended learning

environment than with traditional lecture-only classes. Student performance on midterm and

final exams was also higher on average in the blended learning environment.

In addition to the keynotes, GEDC 2013 Chicago had panel discussions on globalization and

information technology in engineering education, hybrid/blended learning, MOOCs, global

aspects of research, accreditation, and engineering education in a globalized world. In many



respects, the information conveyed in these panel discussions, and the questions and answers

that flowed from them, supported and enhanced the points made by our three keynote

speakers. For example, many of the panel sessions and ensuing discussion emphasized that

excellent pedagogy can benefit greatly from appropriate use of today’s rapidly developing

information and communication technology. A wide variety of approaches to the use of ICT

greatly improve learning experiences by providing more personalized and effective learning

environments for students. In addition, approaches such as MOOCs are rapidly making

educational opportunities available to people who otherwise would not have access to college

courses. Not only are MOOCs making high-quality educational courses available to an

unprecedented number of students, these courses also provide a plethora of student data that

helps advance learning science and provides guidance and feedback which can be used to

improve student education. The widespread use of ICT in engineering education is in its early

stages. It seems clear from the approaches and experiences shared at the GEDC 2013 Chicago

Conference that this field will continue to develop rapidly and has the potential to transform

global engineering education in the relatively near future.

We hope you find this report useful for the important work of engineering education, research,

and service you do in your college and school. The GEDC Leadership and Executive Committee

look forward to future GEDC meetings in which the concepts shared at Chicago in 2013 can be

further refined, implemented, and best practices shared.

Warmest regards,

Peter Kilpatrick Paul S. Peercy

Dean of Engineering Dean Emeritus of College of Engineering

University of Notre Dame, USA University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA



Executive Summary

The 2013 Annual Conference of the Global Engineering Deans Council on “Globalization,

Technology Enhanced Education, and Transformed Faculty Roles” served to empower deans to

advance their college or school’s mission and to prepare the next generation of engineers to

address challenges of the 21st century. For two and a half days, engineering deans discussed

engineering and engineering education in the digital age, and how to effectively lead their

institutions in a fast-paced, rapidly-changing environment.

Held at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, USA, October 20-22, 2013, the

Conference attracted 230 participants from 27 countries, including representatives not from

academia, NGOs, and industry. This year’s Conference was organized by Peter Kilpatrick, the

Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Notre Dame and the Chair of the

Organizing Committee, the other members of the GEDC Organizing Committee, the University of

Notre Dame staff, the GEDC Secretariat, the GEDC Program Committee, and GEDC member

volunteers.

In the opening session of the Conference Sunday night, keynote speaker Seeram Ramakrishna,

Director of the Center for Nanofibers & Nanotechnology and former Dean of Engineering at the

National University of Singapore, reminded attendees of their primary role as educators. “We

must talk about engaging the next generation of students, interesting them in engineering by

showcasing them to work on societal problems and sustainability issues. For millennials, tertiary

education is not about coming out of poverty; it is about personal fulfillment. When we

understand that sincerely, we will know how to engage our own students.”

In his opening keynote address, C. Dan Mote, Jr., President of the National Academy of

Engineering, praised the work of the GEDC. “The GEDC is an important organization that has to

exist, and is going to grow.” He identified universities as natural centers for innovation, with

most companies coming out of engineering. Engineering deans have the responsibilities of

creating the guiding vision at their institutions and ultimately serving their surrounding

communities. In the following plenary, Tae-Eog Lee, Dean of Education for the 3.0 Initiative at

the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), challenged deans to reconsider

traditional modes of teaching - the lecture hall. “Socrates & Confucius emphasized

communication, interaction, and self-learning. But because of mass education, we turned to

lecturing, and those values were lost.”

The two days of panel discussions on digital education, hybrid/blended learning, MOOCs,

accreditation, and research were built on the foundation of the keynote speeches. Each session

ended with time dedicated to questions and discussion, during which deans raised strategic,

programmatic, logistical, financial, and ethical issues in each topic. As in previous years, the

Conference held a New Deans Mentoring session to provide guidance in institutional leadership

for recently appointed deans.



On Monday evening, the GEDC recognized the first recipient of the GEDC Airbus Diversity

Award. The award ceremony was held in the Art Institute of Chicago, one of the world’s great

art museums and a classic Chicago building. The GEDC and Airbus were proud to award Ana

Lazarin, of Wichita State University, USA, with this Inaugural Award for her work in broadening

participation and diversity at Wichita State University in engineering (see Appendix, page 20, for

full details).

The three-day event was deemed a great success by all; some GEDC members observed that it

had been the most focused GEDC Conference thus far. The Conference provided opportunities

for GEDC members to leverage collective strengths and, more importantly, to partner with

deans and members of industry from around to world for the advancement of engineering

education and research.



“Have the skills needed for

living changed forever?”

-Seeram Ramakrishna,

Singapore

Sunday, 20 October

Welcome Reception To kick off the Conference, Peter Kilpatrick made opening remarks, welcoming deans from

around the world to the historic city of Chicago. He recognized the crucial role of both

corporate and academic sponsors and thanked them for making this world-class program

possible. After introducing the keynote speakers, Peter turned the podium over to John Tracy,

Chief Technology Officer and senior vice president of Engineering, Operations, and Technology

of The Boeing Company.

Dr. Tracy began his remarks with an account of the history behind Chicago’s nickname of the

“Second City.” In 1871, the Great Chicago Fire burned the city to the ground leaving the city a

“blank slate,” becoming an open invitation to people from all over the world to innovate as the

city was rebuilt. Evidence of that period of innovation remains in the architecture of the city to

this day. “[The work of] deans has produced the best engineers in the world, which has changed

the course of history.” Tracy stated that fifty percent of Boeing’s current engineering workforce

can retire in the next five years, making the role of engineering deans invaluable. “We are

counting on your success. We need the students and the research that you provide. You inspire

the next generation of people who in turn inspire the next.”

Engineering Education in a Global, Technology-Driven Environment Seeram Ramakrishna (National University of Singapore (NUS), a founding member of the GEDC)

gave the first keynote speech in which he examined three concepts that attendees would return

to throughout the conference: the technology-driven environment of today, globalization, and

their implications for engineering education.

Professor Ramakrishna described the increasingly

integrated role that technology plays in people’s everyday

lives, citing as examples our increasing reliance on the

internet and GPS and the impressive statistics on the

amount of information sent through the internet each day.

Today, technology pervades every facet of life: social,

religious, educational, and medical.

He outlined the characteristics of modern globalization, contrasting the previously significant

roles of the UK and the US in the global economy to today’s globally distributed source of

innovation. In today’s world, it is not unusual for a company to have R&D, manufacturing,

investment, and local markets spread throughout the world. In higher education, globalization

has spurred increased authorship of scientific research papers, rapid growth of international

partnerships, and global rankings of universities. He then noted some of the “big ideas” in

engineering education: female enrollment and research at universities in the 1950s, to mass

education in the 1980s and 1990s, and global education and rankings in the 2000s, leading to

the “big ideas” of today and the theme of the Conference – Globalization, Technology Enhanced

Education and Transformed Faculty Roles.



Professor Ramakrishna claimed that a number of factors are creating a “perfect storm” for

MOOCs/online digital learning, including the progress of information and communications

technology (ICT), the increased variety of learners with a desire for flexibility in learning options,

increasing cost of tertiary education, and a limited number of high quality universities. In an

attempt to form his own opinion on the future of MOOCs, Professor Ramakrishna surveyed one

of his classes. The students indicated a desire for a blend of classroom learning and online

digital support. But rather than replacing the role of teachers, online digital learning would

increase the value of human teachers in the future, as they are called upon to be analysts,

experts, scholars, and links to industry. Instead of viewing MOOCs as a competitor to traditional

institutions of higher learning, Professor Ramakrishna encouraged the audience to see MOOCs

as an opportunity to expand the pie of students. He concluded that the “big ideas” in

engineering education today would not merely be “MOOCs,” but should be developing global

skillsets, an attitude of lifelong learning, and creating sources of innovation.

Monday, 21 October

“Leveraging Online and Technology Trends to Transform Engineering

Education” Monday morning of the Conference started with an engaging talk by MathWorks Fellow Jim

Tung. Mr. Tung introduced several trends - which he contended were more “disruptions” than

trends in technology - and their implications for engineering education and educational tools.

He identified six major trends in technology: (1) ever changing characteristics and capabilities of

computing resources; (2) the increased prevalence of hands-on, low-cost, open-source

hardware; (3) gamified online content; (4) MOOCs and blended learning; (5) the proliferation of



student competitions as an educational opportunity; and (6) the growing need to imbue system-

level thinking into curricula. He offered appropriate responses to each trend, and gave

examples of how MathWorks is engaging and partnering with academia to embrace these

changes in order to enhance learning experiences. He finished his presentation by challenging

the deans to consider which trends they want to accelerate.

Discussion: Attendees raised the issues of IT security, licensing, high performance computing,

and how to engage faculty who are not yet fully on board with new technologies and teaching

methods.

Plenary Sessions

“Globalization of Engineering: Megatrends Shaping Society”

C. Dan Mote, President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), USA, gave a broad

overview on the globalization of engineering, examining ten global drivers that shape not only

engineering education, but modern society.

“When I was a student, universities were ‘ivory towers.’ [Universities] were

outside of society, left alone to decide how we were going to serve our mission.

Over time, our responsibility has broadened – serving students, government, and

corporations. Shifting responsibilities requires change in missions…[the GEDC]

was created by these global drivers.”

He then explained what he believes are ten global drivers with their strategic implications for

universities and engineering education leaders, encouraging the attendees to heed the direction

in which their institutions are moving. The global drivers Dr. Mote identified were: (1)

accelerating change; (2) accessible and inexpensive global communications; (3) global

partnerships and engagements; (4) globalization; (5) expanding access to higher education; (6)

expanding opportunities for talent; (7) cost control; (8) innovation; (9) great global problems;

and (10) leadership challenges. The role and reach of engineering educational institutions in the

global economy is growing, putting them in a prime position to create cultures of innovation

that extend to their surrounding communities and beyond.

In an effort to establish a value proposition for engineering, the USA NAE is holding the

Engineering For You Video Contest. The goal of the contest is to create a 1-2 minute video

showing how engineering contributions have served, or will serve, human welfare and the needs

of society (http://www.nae.edu/e4u/).

Dr. Mote provided an insightful analysis of the global megatrends that affect society, and

proffered the direction in which engineering deans could move in response to these trends.

Discussion: During the Q&A, questions generally revolved around the value proposition of

engineering, and the need for engineering colleges, companies, and national labs to discuss and

refine that proposition. Engineering must be associated with service to humanity; on campus,

deans must bring this message forward.



“Online, Open & Digital Education: The Flipped Classroom”

Tae-Eog Lee, of KAIST (The Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology), South Korea,

shared the experience of the Education 3.0 Initiative, now called the Center for Excellence in

Learning and Teaching, at KAIST. He began his talk with a concept taken from the 2012 Harvard

Conference on Teaching and Learning on the “failed mission of understanding genuine meaning

of the learned: making questions, deriving knowledge, and applying it and creating new ones in

a new context.” It was this idea that spurred the leaders at KAIST to re-examine the

effectiveness of lecturing in the classroom and experiment with a better way of teaching. The

Education 3.0 Initiative asked that teachers “send their lectures to the internet,” where students

would first learn lessons online, so that classroom time would be devoted to projects, problem-

solving, or other interactive learning activities. Students had a positive response to the “flipped”

classroom approach; faculty were initially skeptical of the method, and were reluctant to have

their students’ results compared to those of other classes. Some lecturers were unable to

prepare online materials beforehand and were forced to use classroom time to lecture.

Professor Lee emphasized the correlation between interaction and satisfaction, and argued that

while this method of teaching may not improve everything at once, it is certainly a more

sustainable approach to education in the future. KAIST will continue to implement and monitor

new techniques, and plan to have 30% of their courses follow the Education 3.0 Initiative.

Discussion: Attendees asked questions about the feasibility and sustainability of the program,

including the infrastructure and logistical challenges. Deans were concerned about investment

in high-tech classrooms, changing the culture and attitudes, the problem of large classes, and

how to ensure students were really watching the videos before class. Dean Lee suggested that,

in fact, perhaps group work and discussion would render the video lectures unnecessary.

Panel Discussion: Impact of Globalization and Information Technology

on Engineering, Education & Society

Building on the three keynote speeches, these panelists shared real-world examples of the

impact of globalization and IT on engineering education. No institution is untouched by these

two forces, and engineering educators will find a variety of objectives to advance.

Michael Auer (Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Austria) began the discussion with an

examination of “online engineering,” a new trend that has emerged from the growing

complexity of engineering tasks, increasingly specialized and expensive equipment, decreasing

innovation cycle times, and the demands of globalization and division of labor. Conventional

laboratories, which are expensive, quickly outdated, and not easily shared, are being replaced

by online laboratories, which can be accessed through the internet from anywhere at anytime.

He then shared the example of iLab Europe, a Web portal that brings lab developers,

researchers, professors and students together by offering a common Web environment where

they can find information about university laboratories from all over the Europe, a program

which he hopes will be extended worldwide.



Stephen Lu (University of Southern California (USC), USA) drew comparisons between Mass-

Production and Mass-Education, asking what universities could learn from the experience of

industry. He warned that universities should not go the same way industry went, which in the

1980s took a price-focused proposition of competition. In the case of technology, most

companies used automation to expand volume. With increasing globalization, many companies

exploited outsourcing to decrease costs. This model of competition proved to be unsustainable

and resulted in elimination of jobs, lost skills, and commoditization of products. He argued that

universities were going down the same path by continuing “to robotize lectures and digitize

courseware to expand the enrollment of international students” for the purposes of increasing

volume and revenue. Instead, universities should have a value-focused proposition, asking

themselves “what can eLearning bring to enrich students’ learning experiences on campus”? He

then shared the motivation behind, and successes of, iPodia - a global network of classrooms

that uses the benefits of videoconferencing technology so that students from multiple campuses

and cultures learn and complete projects together in real-time, learning cultural skills and

interconnectedness.

Tae-Eog Lee then reiterated the importance of using information technology to overcome space

and time limitations, and ultimately increase the quality of learning. He proposed the need for a

global education network, with standardized communications and content, which could mostly

be used for instructive teaching.

C. Dan Mote returned to the podium briefly to emphasize the need for solid partnerships. The

Cold-War era was defined by controlling innovation in a defensive strategy. The modern era, on

the other hand, encourages sharing in an offensive strategy, and engaging in strong

partnerships. He used pairs figure skating as an example of the ideal partnership - both partners



have identical goals, both partners are necessary to achieve that goal, both will win or lose

together, and both must trust each other completely and explicitly.

Lunch Keynote: Emerging India, Opportunities in Technical Education During lunch, attendees were treated to a video introduction to the educational and economic

environment in India. Praveen Kumar (Punjab Technical University, India) then offered a

background on his university, a state-governed institution with 412 affiliate colleges across the

state of Punjab that serve over 200,000 students. Because of these numbers, MOOCs and

distance learning could provide an extremely high return on investment. He also underscored

the tremendous opportunity for students who previously would not have had access to higher

education, and the importance and impact of that education for upward social mobility. He

extended an invitation to audience members to partner with the Punjab Technical University to

provide exchange experiences for students and faculty.

Digital Education: Hybrid Learning/Flipped Classrooms The panelists in this session challenged deans to remember that blended learning is about using

a mix of different techniques (peer-to-peer, lecture, and experts) to optimize the learning

experience, rather than using technology for technology’s sake. While technology provides

endless possibilities for blended/hybrid teaching, educators must ask themselves, “Are the

students learning?”

Yannis Yortsos (University of Southern California (USC), USA) opened this session by providing

the backdrop for the necessity of hybrid teaching at brick-and-mortar universities. “Excellent

pedagogy does not necessarily require technology; however, it can benefit greatly from it.”

Because lecturing alone has the lowest effectiveness in knowledge transfer, when compared to

discussion groups, real-life application or demonstrations, educators can be empowered by

technology, which provides mechanisms to maximize learning. Dean Yortsos then provided

several examples of opportunities for the use of technology that have provided meaningful

opportunities for student engagement.

Gregory A. Moses (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA) shared his experiences and wisdom

from fourteen years of blended learning, divulging the process and evolution of “blended

learning,” which started as an experiment. In the 1990s, with equipment support from HP and

funding support from NSF, he decided to stream video. In the 2000s, he focused on creating a

working model of the “flipped classroom,” in a time before there was widespread familiarity

with the “flipped classroom” concept or general consensus on its effectiveness. By the 2010s,

with technological and philosophical issues mostly overcome, he has been able to focus on

student performance. He emphasized that the technological advancements and use of the

flipped classroom have helped him achieve his main purposes: creating more personalized

learning experiences, more effective learning, and showing personal concern for his students.

Candace Thille (Stanford University, USA ) introduced the OLI, a scientifically-based online

learning environment based on the integration of technology and the science of learning with

teaching, designed to simultaneously improve learning and facilitate learning research. She



In the future, I think that we will find that the best use of all these learning

technologies is to allow students to make their own path. - Uriel Cukierman,

Argentina

demonstrated how the OLI creates a feedback loop for continuous improvement through the

relationship between the student learning data and course design, instructor activities, the

science of learning, and student performance. She argued that the strategy for educational

improvement is a cycle of learning theory, data, and educational technology. She encouraged

audience members to lead the revolution in the approach to teaching.

Uriel Cukierman (Palermo University, Argentina) strongly urged the audience to think critically

about the concept of “digital education,” and discouraged attendees from believing in a “one

size fits all” solution. Rather than asking which are the appropriate technologies for the

classroom, they should think about using technology in ways that take full advantages of its

benefits. Building on Professor Moses’s presentation, Professor Cukierman argued that the use

of technology in teaching should be for the goal of more personalized learning experiences. He

presented ten challenges that are yet to be resolved in the area of technology in education.

Discussion: Attendees and panelists discussed several issues including data privacy (will

corporations request the data?), the question of possibly overloading students (requiring

students to watch lectures on their own time), and the validity of the concept of “learning

styles.”

MOOCS & Digital Education Perhaps the most powerful offering from MOOCs and digital education is the increase in

accessibility - populations who previously could not be reached by traditional modes of higher

education now have access to world-class courses. While digital education has obvious

incredible possibilities for students, there is also great potential for educators and learning

scientists in the immense amount of reliable student data that digital education provides,

creating a cycle for constant improvement in education.



Catherine Ngugi (Open Educational Resources Africa, Kenya) discussed the role of MOOCs in

Africa, with her presentation, “Opening Higher Education in Africa: OER (Open Educational

Resources) as an equalizer?” She described the educational environment in Africa - grappling

with “brain drain” - a growing population (in 2040, the labor force in Africa will reach 1.1 billion),

the changing landscape of technology and connectivity, and operating under financial

constraints. She then defined the role that OER has played in Africa to reach students and keep

them in Africa. OER Africa uses educational materials in the public domain, or introduced with

an open license, ranging from textbooks, to curricula, audio/video, animation, and more to

create educational programs. A 2003 pilot study on MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) in Africa

revealed African faculty’s huge interest for exposure to alternative content, and the importance

of sharing their own content and improving their methods. She shared several specific examples

of how OER has benefitted educational institutions in Africa. Regarding MOOCs specifically, Ms.

Ngugi iterated that before adopting it fully, stakeholders must understand the pedagogical,

human resource, and financial implications. Those universities and consortia that currently have

policies for OER in place would possibly be more receptive to teaching and learning innovations

such as MOOCs.

Daphne Koller (Stanford University and Coursera, USA) gave a presentation on Coursera, the

recently-formed educational company that partners with the top universities and organizations

internationally to offer free courses online for anyone. Their technology enables their partners

to teach millions of students rather than hundreds. She explained the pedagogy and inner

workings behind the platform, including mastery learning, online labs, peer grading, and instant



feedback. Echoing remarks from Candace Thille, a panelist in the previous session, Dr. Koller

stated the important role of data as windows into human learning. She maintained that it was

an important frontier in education which simultaneously improves learning and decreases

costs. She concluded with the mission of Coursera, which is to provide open access to education

for all.

Patricio Del Sol Guzman (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile) shared the experience of

teaching the first massive open online course (MOOC) offered solely in Spanish, “Evaluación de

Decisiones Estratégicas” (Strategic Decisions Evaluation). The course was available on NovoEd,

an online platform developed at Stanford University in March of 2012. NovoEd is unique in its

use of the social web and its design with teamwork in mind. The course attracted over 120,000

Spanish-speaking students; at the end of the course, these students were surveyed on their

experience with this online course approach. Professor Guzman reported that feedback on the

different teaching components - individual assignments, team projects, peer grading system -

and for general course satisfaction was overwhelmingly positive. He concluded by sharing his

hope that students would be better team players because of this course.

Samantha Earp (Harvard University) rounded out the panel discussion with Harvard’s

experience with MOOCs. Two years ago, leaders at Harvard were thinking deeply about what it

meant to teach and learn in the 21st century. They concluded that they could not afford to stand

still. Together, Harvard and MIT founded edX, a non-profit initiative offering interactive online

classes and MOOC's from the world’s best universities. edX aims to expand access to knowledge,

improve teaching and learning on campus, and provide a platform for improving research on

learning as well as extrapolate how that learning might apply. Ms. Earp then presented their

two-year progress report. They found that they had indeed expanded access – they have

engaged global learners; seventy percent of students are international. For their second goal -

to improve teaching - the program has allowed them to consider impact and innovation. They

are working with their faculty to explore new experiments and advance technological

development behind them. For their third goal - to advance research - they created an online

learning community at Harvard and beyond, and will use that community for research

collaborations. Harvard wants to go beyond a linear approach of online courses, and will

continue to develop their program in order to reach that goal.

Discussion: The attendees appreciated the high quality of the presentations and raised

concerns about the lack of Engineering or vocational courses on Coursera, the possibility for

faculty to create “Do-It-Yourself” MOOCs, whether data has been collected on how women

versus men respond to online learning, how to deal with copyright material (textbooks) in

“Through the presentations [on MOOCS] and the Q&A participation, we learned

the concerns and priorities in different countries, which is quite different from

reading about MOOCs in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times. For me, it

was quite inspiring to hear those passionate questions and learn about the

tremendous opportunities.” –Cristina Amon, Canada



MOOCs, and copyright / licensing of courses.

Tuesday, 22 October

Lunch Session: Dassault Systèmes Xavier Fouger, Program Director of the Global Academy Strategic Workforce Planning at

Dassault Systèmes, spoke at this Lunch Session. For more details on his talk and a copy of his

presentation, please contact him directly.

Global Aspects of Research University research is increasingly global in nature - in terms of team composition and scope of

projects. Because of the common interests and objectives of various companies and

researchers, there are many examples of successful international research collaborations. These

global collaborations are not without their logistical challenges; however the advantages

outweigh the challenges: increased sources of funding, the ability to avoid local bureaucratic

impediments, and the potential for higher impact research by leveraging complementary

expertise. Panelists in this session shared a variety of examples demonstrating their successes

in global research.

KC Chua (National University of Singapore (NUS)) shared the story of his university’s journey

from a teaching institution to a global research institution. Singapore, a small country with no

natural resources other than its people, gained independence 48 years ago. It adopted an initial

strategy to become a manufacturing center to develop their economy. Since then, Singapore

has moved from a labor economy to a skills-intensive economy, to capital- and technology-



intensive economies, to a knowledge economy. In 2006, the Prime Minister's Office created a

department for research, the National Research Foundation (NRF). The NRF sets the national

direction for research and development (R&D) by developing policies, plans and strategies for

research, innovation and enterprise, aiming to transform Singapore into a vibrant R&D hub and

make Singapore a talent magnet for science and innovation excellence. Professor Chua

described different modes of collaboration happening in Singapore, including individual principal

investigators, joint programs, and national initiatives. He identified the numerous benefits and

challenges of global research.

Juan Carlos de la Llera Martin (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile) provided the context in

which his university and nation is pursuing research. He reviewed many of the trends that

previous presenters had raised: the knowledge economy, the global grand challenges, and the

necessity to encourage innovation, among others. He then shared their goal of creating Centers

of Excellence and research centers, out of which have sprung projects research, the Research I3

(an undergraduate research program), and MISTI (connecting researchers from Chile and MIT).

He also introduced the StartUp Chile project, which offers world-class, young entrepreneurs

40,000 USD and a one year visa to start their companies in Chile. The program aims to bring 100

projects and 1500 entrepreneurs to companies in Chile by 2014. He concluded that the greatest

obstacle to addressing challenges in research and innovation is changing the culture among

students and faculty. In this regard, he introduced the concept of “re-enchanting” students and

faculty with the spirit of discovery.

Katherine Banks (Texas A&M, USA) summarized what her university has been doing in the area

of global research collaborations. Texas A&M, a land-grant university with an undergraduate

student population of 58,000, has focused on sending its university out to the world. Its branch

campus in Qatar signed a research agreement on behalf of the Texas Engineering Experiment

Station (TEES) with Qatar Science & Technology Park, Shell, Rolls-Royce and the University of

Sheffield to investigate properties and combustion characteristics of gas-to-liquid fuel. The TEES

allows researchers to avoid some of the university bureaucracy. The Qatar Research Foundation

funds much of the research. In Brazil, a similar arrangement was made, with COPPETEC and

industry contributing large amounts to research. Because of common industries and joint

research in other countries, Texas A&M had access to funds they ordinarily could not access.

Jean-Francois Minster (Total SA, France) provided a corporate perspective on global research,

identifying challenges associated with managing large international programs. He shared three

personal experiences in global research projects. Drawing from his own experience, he

emphasized the need for a global framework for an open innovation R&D system, along with the

need for R&D management teams that combine high-level expertise with management

experience, an institute that partners industry and academia, an efficient network of

laboratories worldwide, a “small projects” portfolio, development teams, and management

processes. He strongly believed it to be necessary for industry to connect with academia to

exploit the opportunities these relationships would bring, seeing universities not merely as

“providers of students,” but true partners in innovation.



Discussion: Deans raised questions and concerns about intellectual property ownership, the

differences in response time between academia and industry, how to create a system where

both students and faculty can participate, and whether branch campuses create competition

with local universities.

Accreditation in Engineering Education Accreditation has always been important, but is even more crucial today with the increased

global mobility of engineering students and professionals. The demands of accreditation may

feel like a “straight jacket” to creativity; however, upon closer examination, there is a

tremendous amount of flexibility in program design and incorporation of technology in learning

experiences. Current systems of global accreditation are in early stages and leave out major

regions of the world, leaving much room for improvement. These panelists shared their

perspectives on accreditation in the face of globalization and fast-paced changes in technology.

Michael Milligan (ABET, USA) gave an introduction to the USA-based accrediting agency for

engineering and technical institutions, explaining factors that led to the organization’s recent

global focus on accreditation. Technical graduates today require the skill-sets of a “global

professional,” including the ability to function in a multicultural environment and to “reinvent

oneself multiple times...in response to changing...needs.” ABET engages in dialogue with several

international and global organizations on ever-changing student expectations and abilities,

teaching pedagogies, and classroom technologies. Accreditation agencies must continue to

support and adapt to those changes in order to provide students with educational experiences

that prepare them to address today’s needs.

Maria Petrie (Florida Atlantic University, USA) provided the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC)

experience with accreditation, sharing her experience as the Executive Director of the Latin

American and Caribbean Consortium of Engineering Education Institutions (LACCEI). She



reported the fact that no Latin American or Caribbean countries have signed any of the current

existing international engineering recognition accords. Petrie explained that there has been

some confusion in the LAC region about how to use accreditation. This confusion is evident

from engineering programs that have multiple accreditations. LACCEI has been working to

improve accreditation practices in the region; this work includes creating new accrediting

agencies with the commitment of signing the Washington Accord, signing of a regional accord to

improve mutual recognition and mobility within the region, working with professional societies

to comply with the Washington Accord, and bridging knowledge and experience gaps through

capacity building. LACCEI also offers a free Forum for Accrediting Agencies at their annual

conference.

Hu Hanrahan (Engineering Council of South Africa and the Washington Accord (WA)) spoke on

the impact of the Accord on the mobility of engineering graduates. The WA, an international

agreement among engineering accreditation agencies that recognizes the equivalency of

programs and recommends that graduates of those accredited programs be recognized as

having met the requirements to practice engineering, was created to address issues of

benchmarking and student mobility. When it was first developed in 1989, there were six

signatories; today, there are fifteen signatories, along with six agencies with provisional status,

working towards the requirements for signatory status. He claimed that WA graduates have

been reasonably successful when seeking recognition in other signatory jurisdictions. However,

there is potential for further enhancement of graduate readiness, considering the increase of

transnational migration and transnational education.

Barry Clarke (The University of Leeds and the Institute of Civil Engineers UK) spoke on

accreditation as a means of managing engineering outcomes, sharing good practices and

facilitating mobility. His two-part hypothesis claimed that accreditation maintains standards of

engineering education and therefore facilitates the mobility of students, and that accreditation

should be a means of demonstrating the academic attributes of engineering graduates. He gave

the background of the development of accreditation in the UK, the diversity of professional

engineering bodies, the implementation of the Bologna Process and the Washington Accord. He

emphasized that accreditation is not merely about quality assurance, but also focuses on

learning outcomes. As such, accreditation is not meant to stifle, but to encourage innovation.

He recognized the trend of “academics...moving away from being a sage on the stage to being

guides on the side.” He concluded that accreditation, while maintaining a certain standard for

engineering education, primarily facilitates mobility of students in country. Accreditation as a

means for demonstrating specific academic attributes is a concept yet to be universally

“This Conference has been very useful not only for networking, but also for

identifying that the challenges we face are not unique. In fact the challenges we

all face are very similar, whether they are research or education-based or service

driven, and regardless of whether we are in the US, Israel, Latin-America, Africa,

Australia or Asia.” –Theodosios Alexander, USA



accepted.

Discussion: The attendees and panelists agreed that there was a perception that accreditation

stifles innovation. The panelists reiterated that accreditation bodies do not prescribe, but rather

allow, schools to design their own programs, and encourages schools to “play to their

strengths.”

Engineering Education in a Globalized World This session provided a variety of real-world examples of the global nature of 21st century

engineering education. Globalization brings with it increasingly complex logistical challenges

and “culture shock.” These issues are now the norm, and engineering deans must prepare to

lead their institutions through this new environment. Panelists shared their stories of navigating

the global environment, and how they have used globalization to enhance the engineering

student’s experience.

Xavier Fouger (Dassault Systèmes, France) moderated the last panel discussion of the

Conference, inviting Michael Richey (Boeing, USA) to set the tone for the panel discussion, with

his industry perspective of engineering education. Dr. Richey shared some information about

the AeroSPACE program, which comprises a multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural collaboration

between industry, faculty, and students. Students from different universities across the country

work together on a project, with much of their work in the cloud. The team selects a grand

challenge in engineering, and then builds and operates a device or system to address that

challenge. An industry-academia advisory board guides student research, curriculum and design

projects. The project uses a combination of hands-on experience and online courses to enable

students to develop strong skills in critical-thinking, creativity, and innovation. Programs like



“The diversity of the GEDC – demonstrated by the number of countries and

regions represented in membership, and that two of five of our Chairs have been

women – speaks very highly of the culture of the organization. The GEDC can be

proud of that.” –Alaa Ashmawy, United Arab Emirates (UAE)

AerosPACE are building the pipeline, connecting emerging global competencies, and preparing

next-generation engineering innovators.

“Global engineering education” has been part of Michigan State University’s (USA) thinking for

years - evident by numerous exchange programs, and the hiring of a Dean of International

Strategies. Satish Udpa chose to highlight his university’s MSU/IIT Madras partnership. “What

makes this special is that it was a grassroots effort – the students and faculty wanted it.” The

MSU/IIT Madras Program started 15 years ago, when a faculty member who had come from IIT

Madras attracted several visiting students, who later came to study at MSU. That relationship

eventually led to a joint PhD Program, where students can enroll at either institution and finish

their study at the other institution. Dr. Udpa emphasized the importance of learning and

understanding different cultural contexts, and the effectiveness of immersion programs in

cultivating that respect.

Sirin Tekinay (Kadir Has University, Turkey) examined obstacles and opportunities in globalized

engineering education, including evolving learning objectives and scope of knowledge, ever-

changing teaching and hiring methods, and the disruptive phenomenon of digital fabrication.

She used the example of the common global challenge of urbanization to demonstrate the role

of universities in addressing global challenges. She also discussed the potential of the “Fab Lab” -

an open source, global network of fabrication laboratories, incorporating the social web into

product design. Considering the emerging global challenges which require multidisciplinary,

end-to-end solutions, the role of engineers is more important now than ever before.

Janie Fouke (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) contributed her insights into the

educational environment of Asian universities. Asian universities are characterized by

hierarchical relationships - age, rank, and gender – making deferential behavior common and

accepted. In Singapore, students and parents place high value on student rankings. She then

introduced the Global Alliance of Technological Universities, a newly formed network of the

world’s top technological universities which aims to address global societal issues with science

and technology. The Alliance hopes to contribute new perspectives to the network and

strengthen its core activities in addressing grand challenges confronting mankind and higher

education in the 21st century.

Discussion: The discussion ranged from the expectation of industry partners driving curriculum,

to whether students are seeking competitive advantage when they leave their countries, to the

idea that innovation does not equal entrepreneurship, to how to encourage students to take

risks if your faculty are not good at risk-taking.



“The tremendous growth of the GEDC over the last five years …[is] a sign that we

were right in trying to make this organization happen.” – Xavier Fouger, France

Closing Session Jaime Bonilla Rio (Monterrey Institute of Technology, Mexico), Paul Feigin (Technion - the Israel

Institute of Technology), Krishna Vedula (University of Massachusetts-Lowell), and Mostafa

Sualp (AEFIS, USA) came together to present a concluding session on three themes throughout

the conference: Engineering Education in a Technology-Driven Environment, Global Aspects of

Research, and Engineering Education in a Globalized World.

The technologies available today provide a wealth of opportunities for engineering education -

including MOOCs, the “flipped classroom” approach, global networks of classrooms and

laboratories, research projects with team members from around the world. However, leaders in

engineering education must remember that there is no “one size fits all” solution with

technology; rather, the move must be in the direction of more personalized learning

experiences. The MOOCs panel discussion demonstrated that one great power of MOOCs lies in

the contribution it makes to learning science, and how student data can provide valuable

guidance and feedback for courses, curriculum, and assessment. The opportunities from

technology are endless, but engineering educators must constantly evaluate the value of

particular technologies in aiding in learning and pedagogy.

Engineering research is a critically important topic for engineering deans because, as Dan Mote

indicated, our primary role as engineering educators is to be at the service of persons and

society and we do that when we enable the technological solution of global challenges. The

nature of research collaborations is increasingly global in scope and participation, as is evident

from the wealth of examples cited in the previous two days of presentations - Texas A&M and

COPPETEC industry-academia partnership, Singapore’s Campus for Research Excellence And

Technological Enterprise (CREATE), Total’s experience with R&D in photovoltaics, along with

many others. A big question in collaborative research surrounds intellectual property (IP) and

how IP is managed among the partners. Engineering deans are responsible for managing

innovations in engineering education (technology, blended learning, and MOOCs) as well as for

managing innovations by engineering education (entrepreneurship, educating for innovation).

Lastly, the panelists summarized the discussions on globalization and the implications for and

opportunities in engineering education. As the complexity of engineering problems rise, so do

the expectations of engineering graduates. Collaborations are needed among all stakeholders -

academia, industry professionals, accreditation agencies - to ensure quality educational

experiences. Amidst the excitement, leaders must remember to ask how, and if, those at the

“bottom of the pyramid” are being affected and benefitting from all the developments in

engineering education.



Appendix

GEDC Airbus Award Ceremony On Monday evening, conference attendees gathered at the renowned Art Institute of Chicago to

celebrate the accomplishments of the three shortlist candidates and winner of the Inaugural

GEDC Airbus Diversity Award. The city skyline and one of the world’s largest and most

significant collections of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist art provided a gorgeous backdrop

for such an occasion.

The ceremony began with Cristina Amon (University of Toronto, Canada) giving formal thanks to

the Award sponsors for making such a celebration possible. She underscored the need for

diversity of all kinds - cultural, geographic, gender, socioeconomic - in engineering education,

reminding the audience that diversity enhances the quality and quantity of work, a concept that

is backed by not only anecdotes, but research. She then introduced Sarah Rajala, out-going

GEDC Chair.

Sarah Rajala went to the podium, expressing her enthusiasm at ending her term as GEDC Chair

with the presentation of the first Airbus GEDC Diversity Award. She shared the personal

investment she had in presenting such an award, recollecting her own trials and triumphs as she

navigated the world of engineering, a world with few female leaders. She took time to

recognize all the committee members who had worked together over the last year. “Choosing a

finalist had been an extremely difficult process because of the high caliber candidates.”

Charles Champion, Airbus Executive Vice President of Engineering and Chair of the GEDC Airbus

Diversity Award Evaluation Committee, shared Dean Rajala’s enthusiasm, noting that the work

on this award had indeed been a great success with cause for celebration. He asserted that

diversity was not merely a “trendy” topic, but a value needed in industry. The ability to listen

and understand different perspectives from people of different backgrounds is a necessary skill

in a global company such as his.



After presenting brief summaries of the three shortlist candidates for the Award, Dean Amon,

Dean Rajala and Mr. Champion announced Ana Lazarin, Wichita State University, USA, as the

recipient of the Inaugural GEDC Airbus Diversity Award. Ms. Lazarin graciously accepted the

award, thanking the GEDC and Airbus for recognizing her work. As a first generation university

student, she was honored to receive the award, and is extremely motivated to continue her

work in diversifying the student population in engineering education.



New Deans Mentoring Session The New Deans Mentoring Session provided attendees with strategies for success and insights

on what every dean should know. Topics included securing early wins, hiring and mentoring,

understanding leadership in messy organizational contexts, and strategic planning. The

presenters shared best practices and lessons learned, and engaged the attendees in

conversation about strategies for making a difference as a dean.

Sarah Rajala (Iowa State University and Immediate Past-Chair of the GEDC) made introductory

remarks, highlighting the importance of developing strategies for securing early wins in their

deanship.

Janie Fouke (Nanyang Technological University of Singapore) focused on several aspects of

hiring and mentoring, emphasizing that who you hire matters and that a diverse leadership

would perform better than a homogeneous one. Deans should be intentional about leadership

development, and help people plan their careers even at the risk of "losing" some of them. She

encouraged the deans to own their mistakes and address them promptly.

Theophilus Andrew (Durban University of Technology, South Africa) spoke on the “problem” of

messy organizational contexts. He stated the importance of first understanding the

organization, its environment, boundaries, and the relationships within the system. The

faculty/school is a human activity system, with multiple perspectives, different world views and

diversity, and deans must get out of their comfort zones and learn beyond their engineering

science. Leadership, relationship building, and negotiating boundaries are mutually inclusive.

He reminded the attendees that the human element always adds complexity to a system.

Lastly, he asked deans to consider the faculty/school as a learning organization. “Be brave

enough to experiment; allow faculty to have a mistake on you. Always seek to improve the

depth of learning as an organization.”

Laura Steinberg (Syracuse University, USA) contributed her experiences with strategic planning,

starting with the justification for strategic planning. She outlined the practical considerations

for strategic planning, such as which groups to involve, budgeting time and finances, creating a

timeline, and considering the current organizational culture. She emphasized the importance of

engaging faculty and constituents to form important relationships and emotional connections to

key stakeholders as critical to success. She then walked the deans through the steps of

information gathering and synthesis as well as finally implementing the plan. A successful plan

should result in the identification of key strategies, goals, and research focus areas for the

institution.



GEDC Strategic Planning Session Almost 30 GEDC members met on Sunday, hours before the opening of the Conference, to work

on updating the GEDC Strategic Plan, which was created and last revised in 2010 at the WEEF

Singapore. GEDC Officers John Beynon, Sarah Rajala, and Tuncay Dogeroglu led the two hour

meeting.

After reviewing the existing Strategic Plan, the GEDC members broke out into four groups to

examine the four strategic objectives – Institutional Leadership, Curriculum Leadership, Policy

Leadership, and Accreditation Leadership. Each group examined and discussed the scope and

relevance of the objective, and ways to advance those objectives.

GEDC members then worked in groups to identify potential new objectives, including

engagement with intergovernmental and multinational bodies to maximize the potential for

GEDC to be a driver for change in engineering education and the supply of well-qualified

graduates to the workforce.

A smaller working group of GEDC members will be continuing to refine and revise the Strategic

Plan.



GEDC Conference Committee Members

Program Committee Members

Chairman

Paul Peercy

University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA

Peggy Conklin

Assistant to Paul Peercy

Mahomed Nawaz

Cape Peninsula University of Technology,

South Africa

Juan Carlos de la Llera Martin

Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile,

Chile

Alaa K. Ashmawy

American University in Dubai, UAE

John Beynon

University of Adelaide, Australia

Sarah A. Rajala

Iowa State University, USA

Paul David Feigin

Technion – Israel Institute of Technology,

Israel

Xavier Fouger

Dassault Systèmes, France

Peter Jimack

University of Leeds, UK

Shiyi Chen

Peking University, PR China

Ramamurthy Natarajan

ISTE, India

Peter Kilpatrick

University of Notre Dame, USA

Robert H. Bishop

Marquette University, USA

Hans J. Hoyer

IFEES and GEDC, USA

Local Organizing Committee

Chairman

Peter Kilpatrick


Hans J. Hoyer

IFEES and GEDC, USA

Robert H. Bishop

Marquette University, USA

Harriet Baldwin


Joanne Birdsell


Peter Tase

IFEES and GEDC, USA



Conference Sponsors

Platinum Sponsors

Airbus, Boeing, Total

Gold Sponsors

Dassault Systèmes, GE, MathWorks, Punjab Technical University, Quanser

Silver Sponsors

AEFIS, Chrysler, Iowa State University College of Engineering, University of Notre Dame College

of Engineering

Supporting Sponsors

Altera, Greenheck, HP, Juniper Networks, Wiley

University Supporting Sponsors

The University of Adelaide

American University in Dubai

University of California Davis

Duke University

Georgia Institute of Technology

The Hong Kong University of Science and

Technology

Marquette University

University of Maryland

Michigan State University

The University of North Dakota

Northern Illinois University

University of Notre Dame

Peking University

Escola Politecnica da Universidade de Sao

Paulo

Qatar University

RMIT University

Ryerson University

University of Southern California

Syracuse University

Technion – Israel Institute of Technology

University of Tennessee Knoxville

University of Toronto

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Documents

GEDC 2013 Chicago - Global Engineering Deans Council 2013... · improve student education. The widespread use of ICT in engineering education is in its early stages. It seems clear