Indo US Collaboration for Engineering Education

(IUCEE) – A Case Study

Krishna VedulaProfessor and Dean Emeritus

University of Massachusetts Lowell

Vivek SinghalFounder and Chairman

Strategic Business Management Co.Vsinghal@SBM-Team.com

Outline

• Context• Introducing IUCEE• Progress so far and people who are involved• Results of the Summer Leadership Institute• Proposal for the 5 year program and financial

model– IT/ ITES– Non IT engineering– Conclusion

Context

• India has close to 1800 engineering colleges growing at 15% per annum

• Total seats in the region of 650 k to 700k intake

• Close to 400k graduating engineers (contestable)

• Only 25% are employable/ trainable; even those don’t know the art of connecting the dots in a problem context

Concerns• Effect on post graduate education serious

– Number of M Tech and Ph. D enrolment is abysmally low;– Qualified teacher shortage– Compromising future generations

• Social tensions as huge amounts of money is invested by state and individuals with expectations which are failing;

• Economic (Industrial) growth uncertain for want of predictable number of skilled people not linked to projections;

• Not only have we experienced this in India but the professors of US universities who receive close to 50k of our graduates have experienced the decline in the competence and learning expected of a degree holder

• The genesis of the IUCEE is seated in this experience of industry and education systems in US.

8

0

0

0

0

F

A

C

U

L

T

Y

IUCEE-US IUCEE-India

Annual Indo US Engineering

Faculty Leadership Institute in India

Indian Faculty Trainers

Training KitsRegional

Workshops

Regional Centers

Indo US Collaboration for Engineering Education (IUCEE)

Train the Trainer Approach

US Faculty Experts

one-week workshops

Subjects

Trainers

2008 Indo US Engineering Faculty Leadership Institute

Week of Lead Presenter, Affiliation (Topic)

May 26

(84 part)

Rich Felder and Rebecca Brent, North Carolina State University (Effective Teaching)

Ashok Saxena, University of Arkansas (Quality and Accreditation)

June 2

(60 part)

Jorge Velez-Arocho and Rosa Buxeda, U. Puerto Rico

Lueny Morell (Curriculum Innovation and Quality Assurance)

June 9 (Parallel Sessions)

(104 part)

Joseph Tront, Virginia Tech University (Computer Engineering )

James Kurose, University of Massachusetts (Computer Networks)

P.R. Kumar, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign (Wireless Networks)

Veena Kumar, State University of New Jersey (Effective Course Design & Delivery)

June 30

(Parallel Sessions)

(129 part)

Sidney Burrus, Rice University (Signal Processing)

Richard Anderson, University of Washington (Algorithms, Data Structures)

Leon Osterweil and Lori Clarke, University of Massachusetts (Software Engineering)

Jack Davidson, University of Virginia (Computer Security, Modern Compilation)

P.V. Krishnan, GIW Industries (Principles of Effective Teaching and Learning)

July 7 (Parallel)

(161 part)

Andrew Mason, Michigan State University (VLSI)

William Oakes, Purdue University (Engg Design Projects in Community Service)

Vijay Kanabar, Boston University (Project Management; Security)

Mani Venkata, University of Washington (Electric Energy and Power)

World Bank and WB Institute (Autonomy and Accountability in Engg Education)

M.P. Ravindra, Infosys Technologies (Academic Systems & Processes and Leadership)

July 14 (Parallel)

(116 part)

Alice Agogino, UC Berkeley (Project Based Learning, Sustainable Product Design)

National Instruments (Hands-on Engineering using Labview)

Xavier Fouger Dassault Systemes (Product Life Management using CAD)

Christopher Goh, Agilent Technologies (Developing Leadership Skills)

George Abraham, Autodesk (Engineering Drawing Using CAD)

• 23 workshops and 23 US faculty experts• 1400 applicants on-line• 585 Indian participants selected• All had at least M.Tech/ME Degrees; 25% had PhDs• 75% had more than 10 years experience• 25% senior administrators or heads of colleges• 24% female• 15% AP, 7% Gujarat; 26% Karnataka; 16%

Maharashtra; 20% Tamil Nadu; 15% Other.• 175 colleges represented

2008 Indo US Engineering Faculty Leadership Institute

• Participant Feedback

• Participant Energy Level and Involvement

• Participant Follow-up implementation:– Workshops, seminars, course improvements,

teaching and research networks established

• US faculty comments

• Industry involvement

2008 Indo US Engineering Faculty Leadership Institute

considered overwhelming success based on:

Topic Participants Responses Course Rating/4.00

12

Effective Teaching Preparation for Washington Accord

8443

8033

3.903.58

3 Curriculum Innovation and Quality 60 53 3.77

4567

Effective Course Design and Delivery Teaching Computer Engineering Computer Networks Wireless Networks

26143034

24132733

3.753.693.893.82

89

101112

Signal Processing Algorithms and Data Base Structures Software Engineering Computer Security & Modern Compilation Effective Teaching and Learning

3519272523

2917191519

3.793.713.683.473.74

1314151618

VLSI Design Engg Projects in Service to Community Project Management & Security Electric Energy and Power Academic leadership

3218262731

2014242622

3.803.793.673.503.55

19 20 21 23

Hands-on Engineering using Labview Project Based Learning, Sustainable Design

Product Life Management using CAD Engineering Drawing using CAD

30172917

15141913

3.603.343.373.00

Scale: Poor Fair Average Good Excellent 0 1 2 3 4

All 21 courses were rated Good to Excellent (3.0 to 4.0)17 courses were rated by 50% responses as Excellent (3.50 +)8 courses were rated by 75% responses as Excellent (3.75 +)

Course Ratings

Participant Comments• Rajul Gajjar, Professor, LD College of Engineering, Gujarat: This is the first time people are actually going

back with an actual plan; we are already committed; network of three institutions working together; it is really unique

• Rio D’Souza, Associate Professor, St. Joseph Engineering College, Karnataka: They were not only talking about teaching techniques, but were practicing it

• Hemal Shah, Assistant Professor, UV Patel College of Engineering, Gujarat: On-line testing for learning styles was really exciting to me; this is really making us global professionals

• Prithvi Raj Bhupal, Vice Principal, Bellary College of Engineering, Karnataka : This has really opened my mind; so that I can really make a difference

• Nandita Choudhury, Lecturer, Nirma Institute of Science and Technology, Gujarat: Provides me a good opportunity to take back a lot of things which I can share with other faculty

• Milind Mali, Assistant Professor, SKN College of Engineering, Maharashtra: I am taking back the quality improvement slogan: “Say what you do; Do what you say; Prove it and Improve it”

• M. Usha, Head of Dept; Sona College of Technology, Tamil Nadu: I have chosen this course on Computer Networks because of Jim Kurose, who authored the book; it was very different; I found his class to be very very interesting and very practical because of the labs.

• G.H. Joshi, Professor, BVB College of Engineering, Karnataka: Best thing I have seen here is exposure to global practices; and great experiences of a team of professors from University of Puerto Rico

• Ashutosh Marathe, Assistant Professor, Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, Maharashtra: Complete transparency; students are taken into confidence right from the beginning; very essential for building excellent partnership between students and faculty.

• Sushma Kulkarni, Principal, Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Maharashtra: It has been a continuous complaint from HR managers: that only 10 to 20% of our students are employable; something should be done; the word “curriculum innovation” and the “Indo-US” part of this attracted me; to see what other countries are doing; the unique thing is that its is very participatory; we have really come to know the way they are implementing in their country

• I.K. Bhat, Director, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur: With these new concepts we would definitely like to go to other colleges and help their faculty; we are planning to set up training center for teachers in our institute

• Divya, Lecturer, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh: I have been pretty surprised; More than my expectations; I have been exposed to completely different way of teaching the course on Wireless Networks; I will now teach be teaching differently, beyond the text books

• Harshal Sawant, Assistant Professor, MS Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies: The course has really helped me; I really feel that I know how my course can be designed better; course instructor was marvelous and gave many examples; we learnt how to work in a group; how to improve our presentation

• Manali Kshirsagar, Assistant Professor, YC College of Engineering, Maharashtra: while teaching us about outcomes based assessment, their approach itself is outcomes based; we are learning how to practice.

• P.M. Prasuna, Head of Department, BVC Institute of Technology, Andhra Pradesh: Workshop is hosted by the favorite author of my favorite book; I got so many benefits; apart from theoretical approach he has also give practical ideas; so many unanswered questions were answered

• Vineeta Gejji, Head of Dept, Gogte Institute of Technology, Karnataka: After coming here it was a real eye opener. I never thought we can apply teaching principles to teaching engineering; that had never occurred to me; I have 24 years of experience; this workshop has made me realize there are very good practices which can be implemented; I have lots of scope to improve engineering education; I plan to conduct similar workshops and train other faculty.

• Anuj Jain, Professor, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology: Focus is on learning of students rather that on what teacher is teaching; in fact we are using some of what is being taught here, after many years of experience ; here we have learnt this in a structured fashion, which is more useful; if we can put this to younger faculty; they will become more effective from day one

• Anand Kulkarni, Assistant Professor, SDM College of Engineering, Karnataka: Shift of emphasis from teaching to learning has been presented in a fantastic way

• Krishnendu Chakraborty, Techno India College of Technology, West Bengal: Now I have understood the way of teaching, teaching methodology, I can motivate my faculty; I am taking away many things from this workshop; I carry tons and tonnes of ideas: three level approach: do it myself in my course, share success stories with my faculty colleges and then across the region

• B. Seshu, Associate Professor, Bhoj Reddy Engineering College for Women: We have been trained, so we would like to train many more people.

• Bani Bhattacharya, Assistant Professor, IIT Kharagpur, West Bengal: Incorporating active learning within the course itself; this approach is very important; I want to incorporate this in my courses; I have learnt many things and will become a trainer;

Participant Comments

Fundraising and expenses for 2007-08

Income $Desh and Jaishree 334,000NRN and Sudha 334,000Fees from participants 30,100Corporate donations 23,000Infosys Hospitality ~ 240,000

Total ~ 961,000___________________________________________________Expenses $

US Faculty 391,000Videotaping and Materials 80,000Kit development and training 50,000Coordination, administration 180,000Coordination, administration 20,000Participant Boarding and Lodging ~ 241,000

Total ~ 961,000___________________________________________________

Follow up Challenges• Sustaining momentum of Indian faculty

• Sustaining financially

• Scaling to reach large numbers

• Broadening to other fields

• Assessing and quantifying outcomes

• Leveraging Government programs

Future Plans (2009 and beyond)• Sustainability and Scalability according to the

model proposed– Conduct Summer Institutes Annually– Develop Training Kits based on Summer

Institutes– Train selected Participants to become

Trainers using Kits– Trainers conduct regional workshops,

collect fees for sustaining and developing programs

– Mentor Regional Centers of Teaching Excellence

Measure of Success

• Continuous feedback and assessment to measure– Employability of graduates (increase from

25% to 50% in five years ?)

8

0

0

0

0

F

A

C

U

L

T

Y

IUCEE-US IUCEE-India

Annual Indo US Engineering

Faculty Leadership Institute in India

New Indian Faculty

Trainers

Training KitsRegional

Workshops

Regional Centers

Train the Trainer Approach

US Faculty Experts

one-week workshops

Subjects

Trainers

Potential for Scale-Up

2008-09* 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Courses 23 50 50 50 50New Trainers 30* 100 100 100 100

Total Trainers

30* 130 230 330 430

Regional Workshops

(2 per)

30* 260 460 660 860

Faculty Trained

(30 per)

900* 7800 13800 19800 25800

Total Faculty 900* 8700 22500 42300 68100

*2008-09 is Pilot Year

Proposed Funding • Private Industry

– Objective: More Employable Graduates– $ 40 K per course per year (for US Faculty Trainers)– Solicit for interested field of engineering

• Example $ 1,000,000 for 25 courses per year• Government

– Create scheme to be administered by Government– Pay travel, boarding and lodging and part fees for faculty attending workshop

(Indian Faculty Trainers and Faculty Participants)• 9 Cr in 2009-10• 16 Cr in 2010-11• 23 Cr in 2011-12 • 30 Cr in 2012-13

• Regional Center– Offer regional workshops and charge fees – Revenue from fees after paying trainers, materials and facilities to be used for

program and curriculum development for excellence

Summary

• Access: Scale and sustainability can be achieved in five years

• Private funding: Sponsors courses of interest to their field for employment

• Public funding: Govt. creates scheme to support faculty participant costs

• Quality: Regional Centers take ownership of regional dynamic of excellence in engineering education

• Social Appreciation: High quality engineering graduates assist in solving problems facing society

Questions?

Vivek Singhal

Vsinghal@SBM-Team.com