This article was downloaded by: [University of Calgary] On: 21 December 2011, At: 16:31 Publisher: Taylor &

Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Engineering Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

Defining, developing and assessing global competence in engineers

Jack R. Lohmann , Howard A. Rollins & J. Joseph Hoey
a a a a

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0740, USA

Available online: 11 Feb 2011

To cite this article: Jack R. Lohmann, Howard A. Rollins & J. Joseph Hoey (2006): Defining, developing and assessing global competence in engineers, European Journal of Engineering Education, 31:01, 119-131 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790500429906

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2006, 119131

Dening, developing and assessing global competence in engineers

JACK R. LOHMANN*, HOWARD A. ROLLINS, JR, and J. JOSEPH HOEY
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0740, USA
(Received 31 March 2005; in nal form 14 October 2005) Engineering curricula are increasingly focused on developing student competencies. Many new competencies needed by engineers today are professional skills (sometimes called the soft skills). Among the new competencies for engineering graduates is global competence, the ability to work knowledgeably and live comfortably in a transnational engineering environment and global society. While there is broad agreement within the engineering community for the need to better prepare engineers for global practice, there is much less agreement as to what skills and abilities dene global competence, what combination and duration of international education and experiences best instil it and what means and metrics should be used to judge whether students have attained it. This paper presents a conceptual model to dene global competence, a curriculum model for instilling it and an assessment model to determine if graduates have attained it. It concludes with a description of a quasi-experimental research effort now underway designed to evaluate and validate these models. Keywords: Assessment; Engineering education; Global competence; Globalization; International education; International experiences

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

1.

Introduction

There has been a vigorous debate within the worldwide engineering community concerning the importance of preparing engineers for transnational practice and a global society, as can be observed in the many recent reports, conferences, accreditation reforms and efforts to enhance career mobility (American Society for Engineering Education 1994, Socet Europenne pour la Formation des Ingnieurs 1999, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst 2002, Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology 2003, Borri 2003, Soeiro 2003). While many aspects of society and commerce have become internationalized, it cannot yet be said for many university curricula that they prepare students to live and work in a global community, especially engineers. Incorporating international preparation into engineering curricula, however, has proven to be a major challenge. It is due largely to the highly sequenced and content-demanding nature of the curriculum. Nonetheless, engineering programs are nding ways to incorporate language preparation, coursework in global studies, transnational design
*Corresponding author. Tel: +1 404 894 2966; Fax: +1 404 385 6940; Email: jlohmann@gatech.edu

European Journal of Engineering Education ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online 2006 SEFI http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/03043790500429906

120

J.R. Lohmann et al.

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

projects or international study or internships into the curriculum to instil some international preparation. However, very few of these efforts also seek to determine whether the international education or experience provided instils what is really needed.1 What kind of knowledge or experience best imparts global competence? How should it be translated into global engineering knowhow and cultural savoir faire? Is there a critical combination that best develops the condence and capability to live and work in a transnational world? Indeed, what denes global competence? Assuming there are answers to these questions, what are the most effective ways to instil global competence and how does one assess that graduates have obtained it? These very basic questions remain largely unanswered. Dening, developing and assessing global competence for engineers is an emerging eld of inquiry. This paper rst proposes a conceptual model for global competence, then presents a curriculum model designed to instil it, and nally describes an assessment model to evaluate if graduates have obtained it. It concludes with a brief description of a quasi-experimental research effort now underway that seeks to test and validate these models. While these models were developed with engineering majors in mind, we believe they are applicable more broadly to other disciplines as well.

2. The global society and global engineer Globalization is a fact of life, whether in the management of business enterprises, the conduct of government affairs or the exploration of the frontiers of science and technology (Ratchford 1998, Grose 1999, Wheeler 2001). Our highly interdependent global society is as much a result of the need to address major worldwide challenges, such as sustainability, health and security, as it is the result of important advances in the conduct of international commerce, e.g. the European Union, NAFTA, and the creation of nearly instantaneous worldwide communications using cell phones and the Internet (McGraw 2000a, Akay 2003). These challenges and opportunities are dramatically and rapidly changing the role of engineers in society and, consequently, the nature of engineering practice (Loftus 2003). Throughout most of the 1990s the international engineering community engaged in vigorous dialogues concerning the impact of globalization on society, commerce, the environment and, of course, the engineering profession. The issues discussed were extensive, often interrelated and always multi-faceted. For example, Wulf (1997) offered the seven trends that he felt had the potential to change the practice of engineering signicantly and hence the education required to be an engineer. Among the trends were: the vast array of new materials and processes that broaden an engineers design space; the pervasive use of information technology; the increasing number and complexity of constraints (e.g. cost, safety, ecology); the rise in the need to have both specic technical knowledge and breadth of knowledge; the need for teamwork and broad business knowledge; the rapid pace of change calling for life-long learning; globalization, the shift from a nationally differentiated engineering enterprise to one that is far more cosmopolitan. While these trends suggest a rather daunting educational challenge to prepare engineers for such a multifaceted engineering environment, three new skills and abilities required of future engineers seem to emerge from much of the conversation. First, engineers need a broader multidisciplinary base of knowledge, especially in elds that were traditionally viewed as tangential to engineering education, such as global socio-economic and political systems, international commerce and world markets, environmental systems and research and technological innovation (Bordogna 1997, McGraw 2000b). Indeed, one study found that only

Global competence in engineers

121

38% of the US workforce with a BSc in engineering actually worked as engineers (Panitz 1998). The remainder worked as engineering managers, entrepreneurs, patent attorneys, technical writers, CEOs, nancial analysts, salespersons and educators, among other positions. The role of the engineer has become quite broad. Second, engineers need more rened and diverse interpersonal skills, particularly in global collaborations (Sheppard et al. 2003, Swearengen et al. 2003, Andersen 2005, Shuman et al. 2005). The business of being creative is fundamental to our long-term economic health. Cultural and ethnic diversity foster this creativity. A diverse group of people has a better chance of recognizing opportunities (McGraw 2004). In effect, diverse groups are more innovative and effective. Finally, engineers need the ability to live and work comfortably in a transnational engineering environment. Most engineering now involves large, complex and multinational projects. Many engineers will nd themselves working and/or living in foreign environments during much of their career. This places an increased emphasis on language and communication skills (Malone et al. 2003). The facility to communicate in other languages and to assimilate with ease into foreign workplaces and lifestyles are critical to both professional and life success. Amadei (2004) summarized well the new expectations of engineers: Engineers have a collective responsibility to improve the lives of people around the world the engineering profession must revisit its mindset and adopt a new mission statement to contribute to the building of a more sustainable, stable, and equitable world. In essence, engineers must think and act on a global scale. It follows, therefore, that engineering curricula must instil this global mindset, which, when translated to skills and abilities, might be called global competence. But what constitutes global competence and what set of educational and practical experiences best instil it? Gaining prociency in a second language? Incorporating coursework in international studies? Studying or working abroad? Collaborating on a multinational design project? Doing some of these, or all of these? How long, how much, in what combination or proportion? While dening global competence is challenging, creating globally competent engineers capable of thriving in the 21st century is an even greater challenge. Most international education scholars concur that at least three elements are needed to produce globally competent students: coursework in international studies, second language prociency and international experience (Hayword 2000, Hunter 2004). However, there is much less consensus about the kind of international coursework needed, the level of language prociency desired and the length and nature of the international experience. Adelman (1999) suggested that a high level of global preparednessrequires a minimum of eight credits (or two courses) of advanced college level language study, two or more international studies courses and a period of study abroad. Obviously, students can and do accomplish some or all of these three elements without any organized university program. Presumably, however, we would not consider a student globally competent just because he or she had studied a language, taken a couple of international courses and had some international experience. We believe two other elements are needed (Lohmann and Rollins 2004). First, global competence is the result of a coherent program of international studies and experience. We believe the type of international knowledge and the nature and duration of the international experience, and their interconnections, are important. Second, the international knowledge and experience should be integrated and relevant to a students eld of study, i.e. global competence should include an understanding of the relevance of international cultures to a students major. Developing such global competence within the traditional engineering curriculum has been challenging. So much so that international preparation is often addressed as an add-on to the curriculum, such as minors and certicates, or is relegated to short summer experiences abroad. A more integrated and immersive approach is needed and warranted if future engineers are to graduate globally competent.

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

122

J.R. Lohmann et al.

3.

Developing global competence

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

What are universities actually doing to instil global competence in students, especially engineering students? In the USA a number of universities have developed international programs designed to prepare students to live and work in the global context of the 21st century, although most do not specically mention global competence as a goal. These programs fall into four categories: co-majors or dual majors (e.g. Pennsylvania State University, Iowa State University and University of Rhode Island), minors or certicates (e.g. Iowa State University, Purdue University, University of Illinois, University of Michigan and University of Pittsburgh), international internships or projects (e.g. Worcester Polytechnic University and Pennsylvania State University) or study abroad (e.g. University of Minnesota). A number of these programs are open to students in any discipline but may be difcult for engineers to complete given the number of courses required outside the students majors. A summary of these efforts as they apply to engineers is as follows.2 3.1 Co-majors or dual majors Students earn the equivalent of two bachelor degrees, one in engineering and the other in liberal arts or international studies. The University of Rhode Island offers a ve year dual degree in engineering and language (German, French or Spanish). In addition to meeting the requirements for the language and engineering degrees, students spend an academic year outside the USA, either on an internship, studying at an exchange university or undertaking a combination of study and internship. Among all universities reviewed, the Rhode Island program provides the most extensive language study, study of another culture (through advanced language courses) and the longest period of study overseas. However, this comprehensiveness comes at the cost of requiring an additional year of study. Moreover, there appears to be little linkage between the international study and the students engineering major. The other co-majors (Penn State and Iowa State) involve taking 10 courses outside the major, including second language study and coursework in international studies. Penn State requires minimal international experience (9 weeks), whereas Iowa State requires none. 3.2 Minors and certicates Two universities offer an international minor in engineering (Illinois and Michigan). Both programmes require signicant second language learning, two or three international courses and a period of study or work (minimum six or eight weeks) outside the USA. Pittsburgh offers a global studies certicate designed to instil global competence through second language learning and international coursework, but with no international experience. 3.3 International experience A number of universities place exclusive emphasis on international experience. Both Penn State and Worcester Polytechnic offer students well-developed international projects. In Penn States Prestige Consortium students spend a semester overseas. Students collaborate on a four-week design project with peers at European partner universities and then spend an additional four to eight weeks on internships. In the Global Perspective Program Worcester Polytechnic Institute offers its engineering students a seven week overseas project design course that immerses the students in the host country, designing solutions to local problems. Finally, the University of Minnesota has focused on integrating study abroad into engineering and other disciplines.

Global competence in engineers

123

The emphasis at Minnesota has been to match engineering courses at partner universities to required engineering courses at Minnesota. All of these programs are commendable and represent pioneering efforts at international education for engineers. However, some of these programs omit one or more of the three components of global competency (language prociency, international coursework and international experience) and others place differing emphases on the three elements. Some programs, especially the co-majors, may delay graduation for engineering students. Many of the programs require language learning and international coursework but do not tie these elements intentionally to the students discipline. Georgia Tech also offers similar programs, however, it has recently launched a new initiative, called the International Plan, which is designed to go well beyond the traditional approaches to instil global competence (Rollins et al. 2004). This program, designed for completion within four years, includes the three components deemed essential for global competence: coursework in international studies, language prociency and an immersive international experience. A hallmark of this program, and one that sets it apart from other programs, is that it is integrated into the students disciplinary studies. Participants gain an appreciation for how cultural context affects the practice of the discipline. Successful participants receive a designation on their diploma and transcript signifying the depth and breadth of their global competence in the discipline (i.e. Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering: International Plan). The general requirements for the International Plan are shown in table 1. Participating units then tailor their degree programs within this framework of requirements. Successful students must satisfy three requirements to earn the International Plan designation. First, students must complete four courses in international studies, choosing one course from each of three general categories plus a culminating course. The three categories are international relations, global economics and a course with an emphasis on a country or region. The three categories of courses provide both an academic foundation and a context to complement
Table 1. The general requirements for the International Plan. A. Course requirements. The following courses constitute the curricular component of the International Plan. They provide the academic foundation that complements the international experience. i. At least one course focused on international relations historically and theoretically, including, among other issues, topics such as: the role of state sovereignty and nationalism and non-state actors in the international system; international conict, peace, security, intervention and nation building; international organizations, law and ethics; transnational problems of the environment, terrorism, health, and migration. ii. At least one course that provides a historical and theoretical understanding of the global economy, including topics such as: international trade, nance, investment and production; regional economic integration (such as the EU); economic development and modernization; questions of natural resource sustainability. iii. At least one course that provides familiarity with another country or world region that allows systematic comparisons of society and culture. This course should be directly relevant to the international context of the intended overseas experience in Part C. iv. A culminating academic experience that integrates knowledge of the discipline and the international experience in a global context. The academic experience may be offered within specic disciplines or in a multi-disciplinary context. B. Second language requirement. Students must demonstrate competency in a language other than English at an appropriate level. The language requirement may be satised in a students native language if it is not English. All students must demonstrate at least a level of prociency corresponding to that expected following two years of college coursework in the language. Students whose international study/work experience (Part C below) is in a language other than English must demonstrate a level of prociency corresponding to ACTFLs Intermediate High by the time of graduation. C. International experience requirement. Two academic terms of residential foreign experience are required, which must be characterized by living among and being immersed within the local international academic, research or work community. A total of 26 weeks (six months) of active engagement is required. The terms may consist of full-time academic study, internship or research. Academic study may occur at Georgia Tech international campuses, at Georgia Tech international partner institutions or in a faculty-directed residential program.

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

124

J.R. Lohmann et al.

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

the international experience. The culminating course, which occurs either at the end of or after the international experience, integrates and brings to closure knowledge of the discipline and the international experience in a global context. The culminating course is offered by the students major department or in collaboration with other departments. Second, participants must demonstrate second language prociency. Students are expected to reach the prociency level equivalent to two years of college level language study. Prociency is determined by an individually administered standardized test. Students who elect to study in a country whose primary language is not English will use the second language to study, work or conduct research and, therefore, are expected to meet a higher prociency level in the second language. Finally, third, participants must engage in a signicant international experience consisting of two terms (a minimum of 26 weeks) of international experience, which must be characterized by living among and immersed within the local academic, research or work community. The terms may consist of any combination of academic study, internship or research. Academic study may occur at one of Georgia Techs overseas campuses, at an international partner institution or in a faculty-directed residential program. Each academic discipline tailors the program to meet the specic needs of that discipline, such as the location and type of international experience and the nature of the culminating course. This approach not only makes the program particularly relevant to students in that discipline, it also enables the faculty in each discipline to take ownership of the International Plan and to feel comfortable recommending the plan to its majors. The International Plan is Georgia Techs signature program to attempt to instil global competence in undergraduates from any discipline. However, given that Georgia Tech is a technology institute, the plan must work for science and engineering majors. While meeting the needs of these students required some compromises, the International Plan is intended to set a high standard for the level of global competence achieved by participants. We expect participants to be knowledgeable about how the world works, to have signicant language prociency and to be comfortable living and practicing their discipline outside the USA. Thus, while we believe these three elements are essential competencies for all engineering students regardless of where they receive their education, the particular curricular requirements of the International Plan shown in table 1 are aimed at US students, and the strengths and limitations they bring with them to the university from their secondary education. Other institutions can easily modify or emphasize various curriculum elements depending on their students needs and pre-college preparation.

4. Assessing global competence Georgia Techs International Plan offers a set of elements required to instil global competence in undergraduate students. However, to what extent are these elements (language prociency, international study or international experience) necessary conditions for global competence and how much of each is required? Reliable answers to these and other empirical questions can best be found through appropriate methods for assessing student learning outcomes related to global competence. How do we operationalize and measure global competence? What research designs should be employed to determine the overall effectiveness of the International Plan and the relative contribution of each of its elements? Answers to these questions have proven elusive, since the literature on international education and experiences is primarily concerned with study abroad programs. Most reported evaluations of study abroad programs dwell on logistical and actuarial aspects or with student

Global competence in engineers

125

satisfaction (see, for example, University of Minnesota 2004). Few evaluations have dealt with student learning effects or career impact (Bettez and Lineberry 2004, Peters 2004). In fact, Sideli (2001) found that less than 10% of study abroad programs are measuring career-related outcomes and only 15% are assessing aspects of intercultural prociency. If gains in student competency through international experiences are mentioned, the reports are primarily limited to the development of psycho-social outcomes, such as increased self-condence and increased understanding of participants cultural values and biases (see, for example, Sutton and Rubin 2002, Dwyer and Peters 2004). Given the concentration on study abroad programs within the literature on international experiences, a surprisingly broad array of assessment methods have been utilized, including: electronic portfolios (American Council on Education 2005); standardized instruments used in a pre-test/post-test schema, such as the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer et al. 2003); student written accounts of their experiences and structured interviews (Zhang and Li 2005); focus groups (Evans and Lelik 2005); self-reports of gains in foreign language skills (Gray 2002); student satisfaction inventories (University of Minnesota 2004). Largely absent are studies featuring rigorous methods for assessing foreign language ability or competencies specically related to professional practice within the academic discipline. Within engineering education the literature on the results of international experiences is even more circumscribed. For example, orientation survey data were analyzed for pre-existing differences among entering rst year engineering students who eventually participated or did not participate in international experiences; participants in international experiences were found to exhibit a higher social orientation and predisposition towards civic and community involvement than non-participants (Demetry and Vaz 2002). Self-reported increases in understanding of engineering practices and standards in the host country visited, a higher likelihood of seeking a position with multinational companies and increased likelihood of a change in career plans as a result of an international experience have also been found (Gerhardt and Martin 1999). Pilot evaluation results of gains in student learning relative to EC2000 program outcomes at the University of Louisville include increased condence in applying engineering skills to real-world problem solving and increased insight into other cultures (Bettez and Lineberry 2004). In short, most reported evaluations of student international experiences are concerned with study abroad programs. Group comparison studies on gains in student prociencies through international experiences are not evident. Standards for skill gains in foreign language prociency as a result of international experiences are not reported. While self-reports of academic competency gains are occasionally featured, rigorous assessments of those skills gains, especially those relevant to engineering education, are notably absent. The assessment model for the Georgia Tech International Plan is designed to address these needs for a better understanding of global competence in a broader setting of international education and experiences. The centerpiece of the assessment model is a set of operational denitions of each facet of global competence, each expressed in measurable terms.
Basic global competence is the product of both education and experience, and it is characterized by a graduates ability to (1) communicate in a second language via speaking, listening, reading, and writing (second language prociency); (2) demonstrate substantively the major socialpoliticaleconomic processes and systems (comparative global knowledge); (3) assimilate knowledgeably and with ease into foreign communities and work environments (intercultural assimilation); and (4) communicate with condence and specicity the practice of his or her major in a global context (disciplinary practice in a global context). (Georgia Institute of Technology 2005)

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

Two other denitional parameters are included in the assessment model. First, the model must be capable of yielding formative information for use in programmatic improvement

126

J.R. Lohmann et al.

as the intervention commences and develops and summative information to enable a judgment of the efcacy and worth of the intervention. Second, the model must be sufciently triangulated and exible to permit comparisons of operational efciency and the effect on participants of each of the components of the International Plan, independent of the other components, since the impact of each component of the plan may not be uniform. This approach will yield comparative, quasi-experimental evidence of student learning across all relevant competency areas, including the professional practice of engineering, such that the effect of participation in the International Plan on participants may be differentiated from those students who do not participate and thus be validated as a set of educational strategies. This should allow us not only to evaluate the effect of the intervention for institutional purposes, but also to add to the body of knowledge concerning curriculum designs to promote global competence. In terms of research design, the population of primary interest for this comparative study consists of students enrolled on the International Plan. Comparison group 1 includes students who undertake international experiences, such as study abroad, but are not enrolled on the International Plan. Additional complexity arises in that students may undertake one, two or more elements of the International Plan (for example, study abroad) without being enrolled on the plan. This further supports the notion of having the ability to independently assess the impact of each component of the plan. Comparison group two consists of students who do not participate in any elements of study abroad or the International Plan. As far as is feasible, comparison group 2 will be matched on demographic and performance variables with students in the International Plan, as well as with those students in comparison group 1. To facilitate meaningful overall program evaluation and assessment of student learning while ensuring our ability to differentially measure the impact of each component of the International Plan, a mixed methods design will be used, as advocated by the American Council on Education (2005). We plan to utilize an array of assessment methods, such as enrolment and completion, student demographic and performance data, pre/post-international experience questionnaires, internship supervisor evaluations, student and alumni surveys, comparative evaluation of senior design projects within the discipline, standardized tests of foreign language competence, standardized inventories of intercultural competence and reective essays on participants experiences and learning. The assessment schema is presented in table 2. Limited baseline information for the International Plan comes from a recent large-scale study of baccalaureate alumni outcomes at Georgia Tech (Ludlum 2005). Nearly one-quarter (24.3%) of the 1,401 responding alumni indicated they had participated in an international experience as an undergraduate at Georgia Tech. International experience participants rated their undergraduate preparation signicantly higher than non-participants in four relevant skill areas: the ability to practice their discipline in different social or cultural settings; the ability to exercise leadership skills; the ability to resolve interpersonal conict within a group or team; the ability to converse in a foreign language within the context of their profession. Thus, we enter into the International Plan with a certain degree of measured expectation that it will have a positive impact on student learning within the learning outcomes desired (see table 3). For all analyses conducted of the International Plan, the rst year of measurement will help establish further baselines against which gains may be measured. We expect this multifaceted group comparison evaluation design to provide research-based evidence of the effect of international study and experiences for engineering students and, by so doing, to add substantively to the dialogue on global competence in engineering education.

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

Global competence in engineers Table 2. Assessment schema for the International Plan. Participation goals, student learning outcomes, programme objectives Participation goals Student participation

127

Assessment methods Registration and participation counts by semester

Performance criteria 100 students, FY06 200 students, FY07 250 students, FY08 300 students, FY09 300 students, FY10 To be determined pending collection of appropriate data

Graduate placement Second language prociency Communicate in a second language

Exit survey, commencement survey, alumni and employer surveysa Pre-/post-experience competency tests administered by School of Modern Languagesb Survey of employers of internsa Self-report on post-experience survey Post-international experience reective essay Completion of required global economics and international affairs coursework and portfolios of course projects Pre-/post-international experience questionnaire Post-international experience reective essay

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

Comparative global knowledge Demonstrate knowledge about cultures within a global and comparative context Demonstrate knowledge of global issues, processes, trends, and systems Demonstrate knowledge of at least one other culture, nation, or region, such as beliefs, values, perspectives, practices, and products Intercultural assimilation Readily use second language skills and/or knowledge of other cultures to extend their access to information, experiences and understanding Convey an appreciation for different cultures in terms of language, art, history, etc. Interact comfortably with persons in a different cultural environment and be able to seek out further international or intercultural opportunities Global disciplinary practice Use cultural frames of reference and alternate perspectives to think critically and solve problems within the discipline in the context of at least one other culture, nation, or region. Collaborate professionally with persons of different cultures, and function effectively in multi-cultural work environments. Intercultural sensitivity Accept cultural differences and tolerate cultural ambiguity Comfortably assimilate within other cultures

Standardized inventory of intercultural competence Pre-/post-international experience questionnaire Post-international experience reective essay Survey of employers of internsa Survey of employers of internsa Senior design projects and presentations will be evaluated using appropriate rubrics

Previous information and results from the rst year of plan operation will be used as a baseline. Where available, previous survey data may also be used in determining a baseline. The exception is language testing. Students choosing to use English during their international residency experience must attain the ACTFL prociency Intermediate Mid, and those choosing to use their second language during their international experience must attain the ACTFL prociency of Intermediate High

Pre-/post-international experience questionnaire Post-international experience reective essay Survey of employers of internsa

These instruments are already in use and supported by the Ofce of Assessment. All students electing for the second language option will be tested upon return from their international experience as part of the requirements for the International Plan designation. However, only a sample of the students will be tested before their experience for purposes of assessment.
b

128 Table 3.

J.R. Lohmann et al. Differences in preparation by participation in an international experience. Mean Alumni survey items Participated 3.23 3.48 3.13 1.81 Did not participate 3.02 3.28 2.95 1.64 t 3.17a 2.94a 2.57b 2.53b Effect size 0.174 0.160 0.140 0.139

The ability to practice their discipline in different social or cultural settings The ability to exercise leadership skills The ability to resolve interpersonal conict within a group or team The ability to converse in a foreign language within the context of their profession
Rating scale: 5 = very well prepared; 1 = not prepared. a P < 0.01. b P < 0.05.

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

5.

Conclusion

Global competence is among the new skills and abilities needed for all graduates to live and work knowledgeably and comfortably in a transnational economy and global society, especially for engineers. While there is broad agreement as to the need to better prepare engineers for global practice, there is much less agreement as to what skills and abilities dene global competence, what combination and duration of international education and experiences best instil it and what means and metrics should be used to judge whether students have attained it. This paper has presented a conceptual model to dene it, a curriculum model to instil it and an assessment model to determine if graduates have attained it. The conceptual model was based on ve elements: (1) prociency in a second language, (2) international coursework and (3) an immersive international experience which should be combined in a coherent program that (4) ties the elements together and (5) integrates them within the students major. This conceptual model is currently being implemented in a curricular program known as the International Plan. The program is open to a number of majors at Georgia Tech, including engineering majors. As a part of that effort, a ve-year quasi-experimental research effort is now underway to assess the validity of the conceptual model and the curriculum plan. Because a signicant number of students are now pursuing traditional study and internship abroad opportunities at Georgia Tech (about 900 annually) and because of the comprehensive nature of the International Plan, a well-designed research effort may begin to lend important insights into how to best instil global competence in students. Preparing students for the global society of the twenty-rst century is a challenging task and one that it is an important and emerging area for further scholarly inquiry. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of many Georgia Tech faculty and staff that helped to develop the International Plan, especially those who have served on the International Plan Steering Committee for the past two years.

Notes 1. An interesting exception is the effort now underway at the University of Minnesota (www.umabroad.umn.edu/).

Global competence in engineers

129

2. Information about these programs may be found at the universities web sites: Iowa State University, www.las.iastate.edu/students/international/progdesc03.shtml; Pennsylvania State University, www.psu.edu/bulletins/bluebook/major/inlst.htm; Purdue University, www.ippu.purdue.edu/global_studies/index.cfm; University of Illinois, www.ece. uiuc.edu/ugrad/international.html; University of Michigan, www.engin.umich.edu/ipe/ academicprograms/index.html; University of Minnesota, www.umabroad.umn.edu/; University of Pittsburg, www.ucis.pitt.edu/global/undergrad_cert.html; University of Rhode Island, www.uri.edu/iep/; Worcester Polytechnic Institute, www.wpi.edu/Academics /Depts/IGSD/. References

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), Recognition of the equivalency of accredited engineering education programmes leading to the engineering degree, Washington Accord, 2003 (Baltimore, MD: ABET Inc.). Available online at: www.washingtonaccord.org (accessed 14 October 2005). Adelman, C., The New College Course Map and Transcript Files: Changes in Course-taking and Achievement, 19721993, 1999 (US Department of Education: Washington, DC). Akay, A., The renaissance engineer: educating engineers in the post-9/11 world. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, 28(2), 145150. Amadei, B., Engineering for the developing world. Bridge, 2004, 34(2), pp. 2431. American Council on Education Working Group on International Learning, International Learning Goals, 2005 (American Council on Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm? Section=Activities&CONTENTID=7919&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm (accessed 11 January 2006). Andersen, A., Preparing engineering students to work in a global environment to co-operate, to communicate and to compete. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2005, 29(4), 549558. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Engineering Education in a Changing World, 1994 (American Society for Engineering Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.asee.org/resources/ greenReport.cfm (accessed 11 January 2006). Bettez, D.A. and Lineberry, G.T., Assessing engineering students study abroad experiences, in Proceedings, 2004 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004. Bordogna, J., Making connections: the role of engineers and engineering education. Bridge, 1997, 27(1), 1116. Borri, C., Reshaping the engineer for the 3rd millennium. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, 28(2), 137138. Demetry, C. and Vaz, R.F., International project experiences: Assessing impact on students educational and personal development, in Proceedings, 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2002, p. F4B13. Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), Increasing Mobility of U.S. Engineering Students into Germany, 2002 (German Academic Exchange Service: New York). Available online at: www.daad.org (accessed). Dwyer, M.M. and Peters, C.K., The benets of study abroad: new study conrms signicant gains. Transitions Abroad, 2004, Vol. XXXVII, No. 5. March/April.Available online at: www.transitionsabroad.com/publications/ magazine/0403/benets_study_abroad.shtml (accessed 14 October 2005). Evans, J. and Lelik, M., Assessing student outcomes in study abroad programs: are students gaining intercultural skills?, in Association for Institutional Research 2005 Forum, 31 May, 2005. Georgia Institute of Technology, Strengthening the Global Competence and Research Experiences of Undergraduate Students: A Quality Enhancement Plan, 2005. Available online at: www.assessment.gatech.edu/SACS/QEP/ (accessed). Gerhardt, L. A. and Martin, M., The global engineering education exchange programme a worldwide initiative, in Proceedings, 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999, pp. 1167-101167-13. Gray, K.S., 2002, Assessing study abroads effect on an international mission Missouri Southern State College. Change, 2002, May. Available online at: www.ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_3_34/ ai_85465153/print (accessed 14 October 2005). Grose, T.K., Survival of the ttest. PRISM, 1999, 8(9), 1216. Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J. and Wiseman, R., Measuring intercultural sensitivity: the intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2003, 27(4), 421444. Hayward, F., Internationalization of Higher Education, preliminary status report, 2000 (American Council on Education: Washington, DC). Available online at: www.acenet.edu/bookstore/ (accessed 14 October 2005). Hunter, W.D., Got global competency? International Educator, 2004, Vol. XIII, No. 2, Spring. Available online at: www.nafsa.org/content/ProfessionalandEducationalResourses/Publications/IE/hunter.pdf (accessed 14 October 2005). Loftus, M., A new era. Prism, 2003, 12(8), 2629. Lohmann, J.R. and Rollins, H.R., Integrating international competence into baccalaureate degrees, in Proceedings, 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2004 (University of Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, PA). Available online at: e.engrng.pitt.edu/e2004/ (accessed 14 October 2005).

130

J.R. Lohmann et al.

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011

Ludlum, J., Baccalaureate Alumni Survey: 19982001 Degree Recipients, unpublished report, 2005 (Georgia Institute of Technology Ofce of Assessment: Atlanta, GA). Malone, M.E., Rifkin, B., Christian, D. and Johnson, D.E.,Attaining high levels of prociency: challenges for language education in the United States, in Proceedings, Conference on Global Challenges and U.S. Higher Education, 2003 (Duke University: Durham, NC). McGraw, D., Getting down to e-business. PRISM, 2000a, 10(2), 2024. McGraw, D., A different direction. PRISM, 2000b, 9(5), 2224. McGraw, D., Putting it into perspective. PRISM, 2004, 13(5), 2429. Panitz, B., Opening new doors. PRISM, 1998, 8(3), 2025. Peters, C., Career impact. Abroad View Magazine, 2004, 1 September.Available online at: www.AbroadViewMagazine. com (accessed 14 October 2005). Ratchford, J.T., Science, Technology, and U.S. Foreign Relations. Bridge, 1998, 28(2), 1723. Rollins, H.A., Lohmann, J., Long, W. and Grifn, P., Integrating international competence into baccalaureate degrees in science and technology disciplines, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council for International Education Exchange (CIEE), Santa Fe, NM, 1013 November, 2004. Sheppard, K., Dominick, P. and Aronson, Z., Preparing engineering students for the new business paradigm of international teamwork and global orientation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2004, 20(3), 475483. Shuman, L.J., Bestereld-Sacre, M. and McGourty, J., The ABET professional skills can they be taught? can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 2005, 94(1), 4155. Sideli, K., SECUSSA/IIE electronic sampling results: Survey #2: Outcomes assessment and study abroad programmes: commentary on the results of a SECUSSA/IIE electronic sampling. International Educator, 2001, 10(2), 30. Available online at: www.secussa.nafsa.org/samplingresults2.html (accessed 14 October 2005). Socet Europenne pour la Formation des Ingnieurs (SEFI), The European higher education area. In Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education, 1999 (SEFI: Brussels, Belgium). Available online at: www.ntb.ch/SEFI/bolognadec.html (accessed 14 October 2005). Soeiro, A., International accreditation activities, in Proceedings, Enhancement of the Global Perspective for Engineering Students by Providing an International Experience, 2003 (Engineering Conferences International: New York). Sutton, R. and Rubin, D., Learning outcomes assessment of studying abroad: initial results from a system-wide initiative, in Council on International Educational Exchange Conference, 2002. Swearengen, J.C., Barnes, S., Coe, S., Reinhardt, C. and Subramanian, B., Globalization and the undergraduate manufacturing engineering curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, 91(2), 255261. University of Minnesota, Global Campus Study Abroad Curriculum Integration, 2004 (University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN). Available online at: www.umabroad.umn.edu/ci/stats/evaluation.html (accessed 14 October 2005). Wheeler, B.C., The state of business education: preparation for the past? Selections, 2001, 14(2). Wulf, W., Changing nature of engineering. Bridge, 1997, 27(2). Available online at: http://www.nae.edu/nae/ bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-4NHMBD?OpenDocument (accessed 11 January 2006). Zhang, C. and Li, G., Student perspectives on the impact of study abroad, poster presented at the Association for Institutional Research 2005 Forum, San Diego, CA, 29 May, 2005.

About the authors Jack R. Lohmann is Associate Provost and Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His principal responsibilities include the institutional development, review and accreditation of the Georgia Techs academic programs. He has also held appointments at the National Science Foundation, the University of Michigan, the University of Southern California and lcole Centrale Paris in France. He is editor of the Journal of Engineering Education published by the American Society for Engineering Education, a licensed Professional Engineer and a Fellow of the Institute of Industrial Engineers and the American Society for Engineering Education. Howard A. Rollins Jr is Director of International Education and Professor of Psychology at Georgia Institute of Technology. His principal responsibilities include providing leadership to a staff devoted to facilitating study abroad opportunities for Georgia Tech students, assisting international students to obtain visas and adjust to the academic and social life of Georgia Tech and fostering initiatives to further internationalize Georgia Tech. Dr Rollins also provides leadership to the university in support of its efforts to develop international initiatives both on

Global competence in engineers

131

campus and around the world. He formerly held various faculty and administrative appointments at Emory University, including Executive Director of the Institute for Comparative and International Studies. J. Joseph Hoey is Director of the Ofce of Assessment at Georgia Institute of Technology. His principal responsibilities center on the assessment and evaluation of academic programs, educational initiatives and funded projects, as well as on regional accreditation. He has previously held appointments at North Carolina State University and in the North Carolina Community College System. He is past president of the Southern Association for Institutional Research and serves as both a presenter and site evaluator for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.

Downloaded by [University of Calgary] at 16:31 21 December 2011